Datasets:

Cartinoe5930

/

Politifact_fake_news

like 0

“Pennsylvania is under a court order to count their ballots on election day and not after!! A viral post on Facebook misreported the outcome of a court ruling about counting mail ballots in Pennsylvania. "Pennsylvania is under a court order to count their ballots on election day and not after!!" the Nov. 2 text post said. It appears to refer to a court ruling about whether to count mail or absentee ballots that lack dates or are incorrectly dated. State law requires voters to handwrite a date on their mail-in ballot’s outer envelope. But the commonwealth’s acting secretary, Leigh Chapman, wrote guidance to counties in September that stated "any ballot-return envelope that is undated or dated with an incorrect date" but was received on time shall be counted. State and national Republican groups including the Republican National Committee filed a petition in court challenging that state guidance. In Pennsylvania, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote by mail. On Nov. 1, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that counties must refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots that have undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes. The court ordered the counties to segregate ballots with missing or incorrect dates. The court wrote that it was "evenly divided on the issue of whether failing to count such ballots" violates federal voting rights law. The idea behind the decision is to preserve those ballots in case they can be counted later. Chapman issued new guidance Nov. 3 telling local election officials to segregate undated or incorrectly dated ballots from other ballots. This Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Unlike what the Facebook post said, nothing in the Supreme Court’s two-page ruling addressed the deadline to count ballots. On Oct. 26, Chapman said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that election results won’t be completed on election night. She has attributed the pace of the count to a state law that doesn’t allow election officials to begin processing mail and absentee ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day. Some states allow that process to begin weeks before Election Day. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 Adam Bonin, an election lawyer, said that a law passed by the General Assembly this year says counties that opted into a grant program — which is nearly all of them — "shall begin canvassing mail-in ballots and absentee ballots at 8 p.m. on election day and shall continue without interruption until each ballot has been canvassed." "That doesn't mean ‘must end by midnight,’" said Bonin, who represents the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the mail ballot case as an intervener-defendant. "Indeed, the same law says in the next clause, ‘no later than 12:01 a.m. on the day following the election, the county board of elections shall announce and post on its publicly accessible Internet website an unofficial number of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots received for the election.’ That implies that they know it won't be done by midnight and can't be." PolitiFact tried to reach attorneys who represented Republicans in the case but did not hear back by deadline. The timeline for counting ballots begins at 8:01 p.m. Election Day. Counties have until 5 p.m. Nov. 15 to submit unofficial returns to the commonwealth and certified returns Nov. 28. Our ruling A Facebook post said "Pennsylvania is under a court order to count their ballots on election day and not after!" That’s not what a Nov. 1 state Supreme Court ruling said — mail and absentee ballots must still be counted after 8:01 p.m., per law, and officials have a week to submit unofficial results. The court order said counties must segregate and refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots that have undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes. The court ruling makes no mention of the timeline or deadline for counting ballots. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird and fact-checker Becca Schimmel contributed to this fact-check. RELATED: Ballots found in drop box before the voting period opened were legitimate, county official says RELATED: Not all results will be known on election night 2022. That’s normal RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Pennsylvan

“Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security. Nevada’s Republican candidate for Senate, Adam Laxalt, launched an ad saying he will stand up to President Joe Biden and Democrats to "secure our border." The ad shows Laxalt walking near a southwest border fence with three men who appear to be border authorities. The 15-second TV ad claims, "Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security." "Biden’s allies won’t admit they opened our borders," the narrator said, followed by clips of Vice President Kamala Harris saying "the border is secure" and Laxalt’s opponent, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., saying "there’s no open borders." Is Laxalt right about Democrats having "dismantled border security"? No. Migrant encounters at the southwest border have hit historic highs. In fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol recorded more than 2.2 million encounters with migrants, compared to 1.7 million in 2021. But the increase in encounters isn’t a result of reduced funding at the border. A review of budget requests, staffing levels and immigration policy decisions show border security efforts have remained largely consistent under the Biden administration compared with under the Trump administration. Laxalt’s campaign did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment. Biden requested billions for Customs and Border Protection funding So far, the Biden administration has submitted budget requests to Congress for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. PolitiFact found that funding requests for Customs and Border Protection under the Biden and Trump administrations are comparable. Requests under Biden’s tenure don’t show that the administration is trying to tear down the agency. Over the Trump administration’s four years, funding requests for Customs and Border Protection averaged $15.5 billion a year. Over the Biden administration’s two years, funding requests for the agency averaged $15 billion a year. Ultimately, Congress determines how much money goes to executive agencies. For fiscal year 2022, the Democratic-controlled Congress appropriated $16.5 billion for the agency, a higher budget than the four enacted under Trump. We don’t yet know how much Congress will give Customs and Border Protection for its 2023 budget. The White House requested $14.8 billion for the agency in 2023. The Senate and House appropriations committees, led by Democrats, have introduced appropriations bills for the Department of Homeland Security, but have not yet voted on them. The Senate is considering giving the agency $16.5 billion and the House is considering $15.7 billion. !function(e,i,n,s){var t="InfogramEmbeds",d=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];if(window[t]&&window[t].initialized)window[t].process&&window[t].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var o=e.createElement("script");o.async=1,o.id=n,o.src="https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js",d.parentNode.insertBefore(o,d)}}(document,0,"infogram-async"); U.S. Border Patrol staffing levels haven’t plunged under Biden The number of Border Patrol agents peaked at more than 21,000 in 2011 under the Obama administration. Since then, staffing numbers have gone down, hovering around 19,000. During the Trump administration, the number of Border Patrol agents fluctuated between 19,430 and 19,740. Biden’s administration has had between 19,338 and 19,536 agents. CBP has long struggled with the hiring and retention of Border Patrol agents, partly because of low pay and the need for them to work in isolated, remote areas of the country. Staffing consistently stays below the level appropriated by Congress, said Josiah Heyman, director of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies, at the University of Texas at El Paso. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 17, 2022 in an Instagram post There were two shooters in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. By Ciara O'Rourke • October 20, 2022 "You can't blame that on the Biden administration, because that turnover was happening long before Biden came in," Heyman said. Biden’s administration has requested $95 million from Congress to hire 300 additional Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2023. !function(e,i,n,s){var t="InfogramEmbeds",d=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];if(window[t]&&window[t].initialized)window[t].process&&window[t].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var o=e.createElement("script");o.async=1,o.id=n,o.src="https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js",d.parentNode.insertBefore(o,d)}}(document,0,"infogram-async"); Border policies under Biden and Trump are similar Immigration policies at the border under Biden and Trump have stayed largely the same. Border authorities are still enforcing immigration laws; immigrants continue to be expelled, detained or allowed into the country if they pass officials’ initial screenings. Heyman said there have been slight changes on how policies are applied to different groups of people, but he described these as "nuances" that affect individuals rather than major policy changes. He pointed to Title 42, a public health policy enacted under Trump to limit COVID-19’s spread. Title 42 is not an immigration policy, but it allows Border Patrol agents to expel immigrants arriving at the border without placing them in formal deportation proceedings. Title 42 has remained under the Biden administration. CBP data shows that Border Patrol agents recorded more than 2.2 million encounters with migrants at the southwest border in fiscal year 2022, which ended in September. But that doesn’t mean that 2.2 million people entered the country. That’s because the data counts events, not individuals. For example, a Border Patrol agent could have encountered the same person three times. Many of the people encountered were quickly expelled by authorities, either under immigration law or under Title 42. Administration is repairing border barriers, adding detection technology Although Biden has not added more miles of border barriers, his administration has provided funding to reinforce existing barriers and add specialized technology at the border. Biden in January 2021 signed a proclamation to pause barrier construction at the southwest border. But he has not ordered the dismantling of existing border barriers completed under Trump or any other administration. In December 2021 and in July, the Department of Homeland Security said it would divert border wall funds appropriated by Congress in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to repair and fix gaps in existing border barriers. These gaps have become crossing points for immigrants, The Washington Post reported. The administration also said it would use some of these funds to add cameras, lighting and other detection technology to secure the border. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which Biden signed into law in November 2021, appropriated about $430 million to CBP for the construction and modernization of land ports of entry and $3 billion for "critical investments" to Border Patrol stations. Our ruling Laxalt claimed, "Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security." Immigrant encounters have drastically increased over the past two years, but not because of funding or staffing cuts. The budgets for border security under the Biden administration are comparable to those under Trump. Border Patrol staffing has remained fairly consistent despite long-term hiring and retention challenges. And border laws and policies to prevent immigrants from remaining in the U.S. continue to be enforced under Biden’s presidency. The Biden administration stopped building additional miles of barriers at the southwest border; however, Biden did not order a dismantling of the barriers built under Trump or other administrations. Biden’s administration has used previously appropriated funds to repair barriers and close gaps that have become popular areas for immigrants to cross into the U.S. We rate this claim False

Katie Hobbs “has voted to double our gas tax. In the run-up to the midterm elections, Republicans have blamed Democrats for rising gas prices. In an Oct. 12 press conference, GOP candidate Kari Lake attacked her Democratic opponent Katie Hobbs, saying Hobbs "has voted to double our gas tax." Arizona’s current gas tax is 18 cents per gallon, a rate that was set in 1990 and has not changed since. In addition, larger vehicles — which include tractors and trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds or having more than two axles — pay a 26 cent per gallon tax. Hobbs was a member of the Arizona Senate from 2013 to 2019 and in 2018, co-sponsored Senate Bill 1336, which would have raised the gas tax to 36 cents to help maintain the state’s highways. The bill never received a hearing, or a vote. But, according to the Congressional Research Service, co-sponsorship "is generally understood to signify a Senator’s support" for a bill. In December 2018, the average price for unleaded regular gas in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale area was around $2.82. This past September, the price was around $4.18. Down from a peak of $5.55 in June, but still nearly 50% higher than four years earlier. Rising energy costs, including gasoline prices, have pushed inflation higher. When energy costs more, everything costs more. This September, the combination of rising energy and housing costs contributed to the Phoenix area having the nation’s highest inflation rate. 2018 wasn’t Hobbs’ first attempt to raise money for roads and highways. In 2017, she co-sponsored a bill to add a licensing fee to alternative fuel vehicles, hoping to get those vehicles to help fund road repairs. That bill also failed to be put to a vote. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 Karen McLaughlin, the fiscal analysis director for the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, said both of these bills were "attempts to address maintaining roads and highways." Richard Auxier, a senior policy associate for the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, said if states don’t raise their gas tax rates, voters are actually given a tax cut through inflation. "Policymakers need to increase the tax rate both to keep up with (inflation) and to ensure the state is collecting enough gas tax revenue to accommodate how much they want to spend on transportation projects," Auxier said. Auxier added that several states have increased gas tax rates, including Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. We reached out to the Hobbs campaign and did not hear back. Our ruling Kari Lake said that Katie Hobbs "has voted to double our gas tax." Hobbs co-sponsored a bill in 2018 to raise the state gas tax from 18 cents per gallon to 36 cents per gallon. The bill never received a vote. We rate this claim Mostly True.

Reuters reported that Nancy Pelosi bought 10 million shares of cannabis stock On Oct. 6, President Joe Biden said he would pardon all people convicted of simple marijuana possession offenses under federal law and directed Cabinet members to review how the drug is classified. Later that day, a claim started to spread on social media that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had bought millions of shares of cannabis stock before Biden’s announcement. "Breaking," reads one Oct. 7 Instagram post. "Nancy Pelosi purchased 10,000,000 shares of $WEED 4 days ago." The claim was attributed to Reuters, a news service headquartered in London. "Imagine that… #crooks," the post added. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 Reuters said in an Oct. 13 story about the claim that it did not report this. We found no evidence to contradict this. Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, told PolitiFact the claim is false. Pelosi’s most recent publicly available financial disclosure report, signed by the speaker Oct. 14, reflects no such transaction. Nor did the previous report, signed Sept. 9, or any others filed this year. Stock purchases by politicians and their potential for conflicts of interest have drawn increased scrutiny in recent years. And in December, Pelosi drew some criticism for rebuffing the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning individual shares. But claims that she bought shares of cannabis stock this year — and that Reuters reported on it — are False.

It's not true that "the United States was built on stolen land. As Florida's governor, Republican Ron DeSantis has repeatedly stated his conviction that leaders need to fight attempts to "indoctrinate students" in classrooms. In the only gubernatorial debate before the Nov. 8 election, Gov. DeSantis contrasted his record on education with that of Democratic challenger Charlie Crist and Crist's running mate Karla Hernández-Mats. "You have people that are teaching — and actually his running mate has said this in the past — that teaching the United States was built on stolen land," DeSantis said Oct. 24. "That is inappropriate for our schools; it's not true." We wondered what DeSantis was referring to and whether he was right in his assessment of whether the U.S. was built on "stolen land." DeSantis' campaign did not get back to us. But his remark echoed tweets from Christina Pushaw, rapid response director for DeSantis' re-election campaign. One tweet included a screenshot of a June 24, 2018, Facebook post from United Teachers of Dade, where Hernández-Mats, a former special education teacher, has been president since 2016. The Facebook post included an image of a sign that read: "No one is illegal on stolen land." Hernández-Mats did not respond to specific questions about the image. The post was shared at a time when U.S. immigration policies were dominating the news. We reached out to historians of Native and non-Native descent. All of them said it is well documented that the U.S. acquired Native American land through dubious treaties and, at times, forcefully confiscated ancestral territories to bolster the country's expansion. "As a general statement, yes, the United States stole land from Native Americans," said Philip Deloria, a Native American history professor at Harvard University. Featured Fact-check Joe Biden stated on October 23, 2022 in a forum with Now This Student loan forgiveness is “passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect.” By Louis Jacobson • October 25, 2022 Sometimes the U.S. and Native American tribes struck treaties that defined boundaries and determined land sale prices and forms of compensation. Other times, tribes signed land-ceding agreements under duress. Deloria said the U.S. often placed compensation for these deals in U.S.-controlled trust funds or promised payment over a number of years, but then failed to follow through. The Sioux Agreement of 1877 is an example of the U.S. acquiring land from Native Americans through fraudulent practices and treaty violations. In 1868, the U.S. signed a treaty recognizing the Black Hills, a 7-million-acre South Dakota mountain range, as part of the Great Sioux Reservation. It set the land "apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Sioux, a Native American tribe. An image captured in 1868 shows U.S. Army Gen. William T. Sherman and Sioux leaders at Fort Laramie, Wyoming, signing a peace treaty that recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation. Its terms disintegrated after U.S. officials sought to annex the land, rumored to have gold. The event formed the basis for a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that found the U.S. had taken the tribal lands illegally. (National Archives and Records Administration) The treaty between the U.S. government and the Sioux said that non-Native people "are not permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory." Speculation that the Black Hills contained gold, however, led miners to trespass on Sioux territory. The U.S. then moved to negotiate with the Sioux to acquire the land. The deal fell through, which led to a war and hundreds of deaths. The tribe later surrendered and signed a treaty that ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in 1975 that the Sioux are entitled to damages of around $17 million for this land seizure. The court remarked: "A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history." In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government had acquired the Black Hills through "unfair and dishonorable dealing" and affirmed that it owed the Sioux tribe "just compensation," including interest. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "There was tragedy, deception, barbarity, and virtually every other vice known to man in the 300-year history of the expansion of the original 13 Colonies into a Nation which now embraces more than three million square miles." The U.S. sometimes bought Native land from European countries, like France, and claimed ownership even though "France did not treaty with the many tribes who lived upon that land," said Randy Woodley, director of intercultural and indigenous studies at George Fox University. The federal government also forcibly removed Native Americans from their ancestral lands after former President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830. That expulsion became known as the "Trail of Tears," which killed thousands of Native Americans. An image shows a page from the bill that would go on to become the Indian Removal Act of 1830. (Library of Congress) The Seminoles resisted relocation, and the result was a half-century of warfare. Andrew Frank, a Florida State University professor who specializes in the history of the Seminoles, said the U.S. annexed much of Florida through treaties that a majority of the tribal leaders opposed. The U.S. military drove out more than 3,000 Seminoles from the state, according to the Florida Department of State. Around 300 members of the tribe remained in Florida. "The post-Civil War period is full of people being compressed, contained, and confined onto small reservations within their territory, in order to accommodate non-Native settlement," Deloria told PolitiFact. In 1946, the federal government created the Indian Claims Commission to resolve legal claims that the U.S. obtained Native American land through questionable or fraudulent economic transactions. It lasted until 1978, and unsettled claims were transferred to the U.S. Court of Claims. The commission found that the U.S. government's payment of $152,500 to the Seminoles for about 23 million acres of land in Florida was "clearly unconscionable." The Indian Claims Commission completed 546 cases, awarding about $818 million to Native American tribes. "It is historically inaccurate to say the land was not stolen from Native Americans," Woodley said. Our ruling DeSantis said it's not true that "the United States was built on stolen land." Historians of Native and non-Native descent said DeSantis' characterization is wrong. It's well-documented that the U.S. repeatedly made treaties with Native Americans and then violated them using force and other means to accommodate non-Native settlement. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have time and again affirmed that as fact. Government-endorsed actions to remove Native Americans from their ancestral lands included the 1830 passage of a federal law that led to war and resulted in thousands of Native deaths and more than 3,000 Seminoles being removed from Florida. DeSantis' claim is wildly historically inaccurate. We rate it Pants on Fire! Read this fact-check in Spanish

“Freedom of Information Act requests show a dozen phone calls between the cell phone of Ray Epps and the office of Speaker Pelosi in the week before #January6th An Instagram post is reviving the claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke on the phone with Ray Epps a week ahead of the Capitol insurrection. "BREAKING: Freedom of Information Act requests show a dozen phone calls between the cell phone of Ray Epps and the office of Speaker Pelosi in the week before #January6th," reads a screenshot of a previously published tweet shared in an Oct. 28 Instagram post. The post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Ray Epps was a Trump supporter living in Arizona when he traveled to Washington, D.C., ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Videos from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, captured Epps urging others to enter the Capitol "peacefully"and he soon became the subject of far-right conspiracy theory alleging he was a government-protected FBI asset who instigated the riot. The narrative has been dismantled numerous times, including during public hearings held by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Epps had no ties to the FBI or law enforcement and bore no responsibility for orchestrating the event. And there are no federal documents showing he spoke by phone with Pelosi a week before the insurrection. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The image and claim in this Instagram post is a screenshot of a now-deleted tweet that first surfaced in July. Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, told PolitiFact in an email that the claim was false. The federal Freedom of Information Act permits members of the public to request records from federal agencies within the executive branch of the federal government. But Congress and the judiciary are not subject to the law. Although anyone can ask for such records, we find no evidence that such records have been produced — and neither have USA Today, The Associated Press or Lead Stories, all of which have fact-checked this claim since it first surfaced. Our ruling An Instagram post claims records produced by a Freedom of Information Act request show Epps and Pelosi spoke on the phone dozens of times in the week leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. A spokesperson for Pelosi told PolitiFact there is no merit to the claims. Further, members of Congress are not subject to FOIA requests. We rate this claim Fals

Australian officials “are giving cows mRNA vaccines. An Instagram post claims that the Australian government is giving mRNA vaccines to livestock and that it will affect consumers. "They are giving cows mRNA vaccine which will pass the vaccine into milk, cheese etc," says a screenshot of a headline shared Oct. 25 in an Instagram post. The screenshot also says, "Dairy farmer are now forced to vaccinate their herd with an mRNA vaccine!" The caption on the post says, "Do you think this is true?" The post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The short answer: No, it is not true. The screenshot from the Instagram post shows an article on Truth11.com, which cites another website called Before It’s News, which then points to an anonymous email as the information’s source. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 13, 2022 in a post on Facebook If a sealed bag of raw poultry appears “puffy,” it means the protein is not safe to consume. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 14, 2022 "A friend (in New South Wales) informed me today that her neighbor, a dairy farmer, is now forced to vaccinate her herd with an mRNA vaccine!," part of the email reads. "She complied and of the 200 head of cattle, 35 died instantly!" "The farmer said it is mandatory for all dairy farms to have their herd jabbed with this mRNA vaccine," the email continued. There are currently no mRNA vaccines being used on livestock in Australia, a spokesperson for the country’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry told PolitiFact. In September, New South Wales officials said they would prioritize "fast-track" development of mRNA vaccines for livestock to prevent foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. Those are expected to be introduced in August 2023. We rate the claim that Australian officials "are giving cows mRNA vaccines" False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this repor

Thunderous crowd at Philadelphia Phillies game “literally registering on the Penn State University Brandywine seismograph station. Did a thunderous crowd at the Philadelphia Phillies’ Citizens Bank Park erupt in a celebration that "literally registered" on a seismograph? That’s what a viral tweet claimed on Nov. 1 after the home team hit five home runs during Game 3 of the World Series, which the Phillies won 7-0. "Harper and Bohm home runs are literally registering on the Penn State University Brandywine seismograph station," the Nov. 1 tweet said, referring to home runs hit by the Phillies’ Alec Bohm and Bryce Harper. "The city is physically shaking." An image included with the tweet shows what appears to be a graph of seismic activity. The tweet has been liked more than 10,000 times. But as raucous as the celebrations might have been, they did not register on a seismograph. Kyle Homman, the seismic network manager for the Pennsylvania State Seismic Network and a doctoral candidate in Penn State University’s Department of Geosciences, told PolitiFact in an email that there were no seismic activity spikes related to the game. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 18, 2022 in a post “Eagles fans shout F— Joe Biden while Jill Biden attends NFL game!” By Gabrielle Settles • October 26, 2022 "I did find a play-by-play (of the game) and looked more closely at the data around the home run times," Homman said. "Assuming those times are correct, I did not see any increase in the seismic data that would indicate shaking from the stadium being recorded." The closest seismic station to the stadium is at the Penn State satellite campus of Brandywine, Homman said. That’s roughly 20 miles from Citizens Bank Park. Another expert said that distance is too far to be able to register activity. "No stadium, no matter how loud it is, is going to generate enough seismic waves that it’s going to transmit 20 miles," Laura Guertin, a Penn State earth sciences professor, told The Philadelphia Inquirer. Furthermore, Tammie Souza, a meteorologist for Philadelphia's CBS television affiliate, tweeted that the original tweet’s image corresponded with a magnitude 5.1 earthquake recorded Oct. 25 in San Francisco. We rate the claim that the crowd at a Philadelphia Phillies World Series game "literally registered" on a seismograph Pants on Fire

CNN reported Donald Trump died on Nov. 1 Former President Donald Trump isn’t dead, though what looks like a screenshot of a CNN article reporting otherwise may make you do a double-take. "Donald Trump dead at 76," reads the purported headline for a story by CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza that was "updated at 3:49 PM ET" on Nov. 2. An Instagram post sharing the screenshot was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The same claims were trending on Twitter. A closer look at the image reveals a caption that might clue in some readers that this is a joke at Trump’s expense. It says he "died of autoerotic asphyxiation in his Florida home on November 1, 2022." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 10, 2022 in a post “Premature babies are at a much higher risk of injury from immunizations than full-term babies.” By Andy Nguyen • October 13, 2022 The story is not on CNN’s website, and we found no evidence that it ever was. Trump has been active on Truth Social since his alleged death, and Nov. 2 he issued a statement endorsing Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. On Nov. 3, he’s expected at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, to support Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. We rate claims that he’s dead and CNN reported it Pants on Fir

“J.D. Vance said nothing about” the attack on Paul Pelosi At a Fox News town hall-style event in Ohio, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Tim Ryan fielded a question about the increasingly harsh tone in American politics. Ryan said extremism "needs to be confronted," and pointed to the attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "What happened to Paul Pelosi was an absolute tragedy," Ryan said. "I don't care what your politics are. It's not about that." In the early hours on Oct. 28, a man broke into the Pelosi residence in San Francisco and struck Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer. The suspect, David DePape, faces a laundry list of charges including assault, attempted murder and attempted kidnapping. Ryan then compared the response of his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, with that of Ohio’s senator and governor. "J.D. Vance said nothing about this," Ryan said. "You should ask him, because Rob Portman and Mike DeWine did, and J.D. Vance was silent." Ryan was wrong on the last point. The day of the attack, Vance was at a campaign event in Canton, Ohio. After speaking, Vance fielded questions from reporters. The local newspaper, The Canton Repository, reported his comment on the Pelosi attack, remarks verified by Politifact. As the impromptu news conference was ending, a reporter asked Vance about the Pelosi attack. "It's terrible," Vance said. "I hope that he's OK. It sounds like he is going to be OK. But it's just further evidence we need to lower the temperature in this country." As it turned out, only The Canton Repository reported on Vance’s comments. Vance’s press team said that national press outlets including The New York Times, Fox News and Business Insider, were part of that gaggle with reporters. The campaign’s thinking, a spokesperson said, was that Vance had weighed in on the episode and his comments didn’t need further amplification. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 A Washington Post roundup about Republican candidates’ responses to the attack did not include Vance’s words. Izzy Levi, spokeswoman for the Ryan campaign, acknowledged Vance’s comments on the attack. "He may have responded when asked that one time, but has made no proactive comment on the matter," Levi said. Some Republicans took to Twitter to post their thoughts. That list includes Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, who said, "We must all stand up against this violence. I wish Mr. Pelosi a speedy and full recovery." Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine decried this "terrible and senseless act of violence." Outside Ohio, Republican Senate candidates Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Joe O’Dea in Colorado and Don Bolduc in New Hampshire shared similar sympathies. But just as many Republican Senate candidates did not follow suit. That group includes Herschel Walker in Georgia, Adam Laxalt in Nevada, Ted Budd in North Carolina and Blake Masters in Arizona. During the same Fox News town hall event where Ryan claimed Vance had said nothing, Vance said he has condemned "the violence against Paul Pelosi from the very beginning." Our ruling Ryan said that Vance "said nothing" about the attack on Paul Pelosi. Vance had spoken. In response to a reporter’s question, he called the attack terrible, and said "we need to lower the temperature in this country." National press did not report his words; a local newspaper did. Other Republicans leaders in Ohio as well as Republican Senate candidates in other states released statements via Twitter condemning the attack. Vance did not do that. We rate this claim False.

President Joe Biden and Democrats "send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesn’t mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofit Citizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden "and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens," following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats "send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children." (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing "too much" in Ukraine has skyrocketed from 6% in March to 48% today. First, let’s set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine, according to calculations by Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some won’t be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that haven’t been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 19, 2022 in a post The diphtheria vaccine is a “poison dart” with side effects worse than the symptoms of diphtheria. By Andy Nguyen • October 24, 2022 By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Biden’s administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statistics collected by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on children’s behalf — a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing — amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Biden’s administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found — far more than the $66 billion that’s been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Biden’s 2021 inauguration. One of the bill’s centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other children’s programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to the Treasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats "send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children." On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fir

“Smithsonian admits to destruction of thousands of giant human skeletons in early 1900s. The Smithsonian National Museum of History has hundreds of skeletons on display in its aptly named Bone Hall. Some have been on view since 1881. But a recent Instagram post suggests the keepers of these skeletal artifacts have confessed to destroying others. "Smithsonian admits to destruction of thousands of giant human skeletons in early 1900s," read what looks like a screenshot of a news headline. "A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian Institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover-up." The post sharing this screenshot was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 This story originated on a website that publishes fiction and satire, and it’s been online since at least 2014. A Smithsonian Institution spokesperson also told Reuters in August that the claim is false. We rate claims that the Smithsonian admitted to destroying thousands of giant human skeletons Pants on Fire!

“Leaked audio tape of the 911 call from the Paul Pelosi attack has surfaced. The call proves that the liberal media has lied about what really happened. A recent Instagram post cast a tantalizing lure for users following developments in the story about the Oct. 28 attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. "BREAKING," a Nov. 1 post says. "A leaked audio tape of the 911 call from the Paul Pelosi attack has surfaced. The call proves that the liberal media has lied about what really happened." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We found no evidence that the 911 call Paul Pelosi placed after an intruder broke into the San Francisco home he shares with the speaker was leaked. CNN reported Nov. 1 that "members of the Pelosi family are expected to be able to hear audio from the 911 call" and see body camera footage of the officers who responded to the home, but neither the call nor the footage has been made public. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in Instagram post California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!” By Michael Majchrowicz • October 31, 2022 The federal criminal complaint filed against David DePape, the 42-year-old man accused of assaulting Paul Pelosi, offers the most details about the call thus far. The complaint says that at 2:23 a.m. Oct. 28, a San Francisco dispatcher received a 911 call from Paul Pelosi that was placed from his home. "Pelosi stated words to the effect of there is a male in the home and that the male is going to wait for Pelosi’s wife," the complaint says. "Pelosi further conveyed that he does not know who the male is. The male said his name is David." An audio recording of police dispatch echoes this. The Instagram post goes on to refer users to the account @red.wave1776, saying it’s the "only place" to find the purported leaked 911 call. That account is private, and the setup is similar to another post we recently checked that claimed to have leaked messages between former President Barack Obama and the judge who signed off on the warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. In that case, account after account referred users to follow yet another account, and no leaked messages materialized. We rate claims that the 911 call Paul Pelosi placed has been leaked Fals

"Raphael Warnock and Stacey Abrams are radical communists and, if they get their way, gun owners here in Georgia will be completely disarmed. The top two Democrats on Georgia’s election ticket are communists and gun confiscators, according to an attack ad released by a gun rights group in the final days before the Nov. 8 midterms. Georgia Gun Owners’ ad running on both Facebook and Instagram is directed at U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock and gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. "Raphael Warnock and Stacey Abrams are radical communists and, if they get their way, gun owners here in Georgia will be completely disarmed!" the ad’s caption said. "That’s what they want, to turn our beloved Georgia, and America, into the next China — where only the government has guns." It features the Georgia Gun Owners’ leader, Aaron Dorr, reiterating the attacks on the Abrams and Warnock and on President Joe Biden. Dorr says they are communists who hate America and "want to turn it into the next China." The ad makes a false claim without evidence. Warnock and Abrams have not espoused communist policies or called for blanket seizures of guns. The Nov. 8 contests Warnock, who won a special election in January 2021, is being challenged by former college and professional football player Herschel Walker, a Republican. The toss-up race could help decide which party controls the Senate, which is split 50-50. Abrams is running against first-term GOP Gov. Brian Kemp; she narrowly lost to him in 2018. Georgia Gun Owners did not respond to our messages requesting evidence for the ad’s claims. Warnock, Abrams are not communists Communism typically involves authoritarian rule, a one-party government that owns all property and controls the means of production, and advocates for ending capitalism. Warnock and Abrams have not espoused such policies. "Many on the right use the word communist as a catchall epithet to describe pretty much any liberal policy or person," said Jeffrey Lazarus, political science professor at Georgia State University. "Neither Warnock nor Abrams has said anything remotely close to advocating for a public takeover of significant sectors of the economy. The idea doesn’t have any sort of cachet in mainstream Democratic circles." Warnock’s campaign pointed to news reports that identified him as a capitalist after he was attacked as a Marxist during his first Senate campaign. Abrams’ campaign denied that she is a communist. Featured Fact-check Liquid Death stated on October 27, 2022 in an ad In Georgia, it's "illegal to give people water within 150 feet of a polling place" and "punishable by up to a year in prison." By Tom Kertscher • November 7, 2022 "While various policies espoused by Abrams and Warnock might be labeled liberal or progressive, especially compared to previous statewide candidates in Georgia, there is nothing they are promoting that comes anywhere near being labeled communist," said Thomas Hunter, a political scientist at the University of West Georgia. "It is ludicrous to call them ‘radical communists.’" Warnock’s and Abrams’ stance on gun access Warnock and Abrams have not called for widespread gun confiscation. Hunter said that although Abrams and Warnock favor gun control, "neither has come anywhere near calling for the widespread confiscation of weapons." Warnock is endorsed by the Giffords anti-gun violence group, which praised his support of legislation to restrict firearm access for people who have committed domestic abuse and to require background checks on all gun sales. The National Rifle Association has criticized Warnock’s support of legislation that would ban semiautomatic weapons such as AR-15-style rifles. Warnock’s campaign website does not address guns and he has been less outspoken than Abrams about gun control. His campaign said Warnock has supported "common-sense" gun control efforts, not taking away guns. Abrams told Axios in June that she would pursue "the obvious and the common-sense gun safety rules that do not infringe upon anyone's ability to carry." She supports limiting access to guns for domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers, and enabling people and law enforcement officials to petition courts to temporarily restrict gun access for people who have mental health problems that threaten themselves or others. The NRA has criticized Abrams’ stance, claiming her restrictions "would strip Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans without due process." Giffords endorsed Abrams. None of Abrams’ gun-control proposals "would lead to law-abiding gun owners being 'completely disarmed’," campaign spokesperson Alex Floyd said. Our ruling Georgia Gun Owners claimed that Warnock and Abrams are "radical communists and, if they get their way, gun owners here in Georgia will be completely disarmed." The two Georgia Democrats have not advocated communist policies, such as complete government ownership of property. They also have not called for the widespread confiscation of guns from all people in Georgia. The claim is inaccurate and distorts reality. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: All our fact-checks about Georg

Abraham Hamadeh says he will “lock up doctors, nurses, pharmacists” and “punish women for abortion. In 1864, almost 50 years before Arizona officially became a state, the territory passed a law that said anyone who helps a woman miscarry can be put in jail. More than 100 years later, this law has become a central issue in the state’s attorney general race. Democratic candidate Kris Mayes claims her opponent, Abraham Hamadeh, would target women and doctors for abortion law violations. "My opponent, has affirmed he will indeed lock up doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. and punish women for abortion, with zero exceptions for rape or incest," Mayes tweeted Sept. 25. Hamadeh’s campaign called this statement a "blatant misrepresentation." "Abe has never said he supports the (abortion) ban outright, only that the attorney general has a duty to defend the law regardless of their personal opinion," Hamadeh’s campaign said in an Oct.14 emailed statement, echoing an earlier tweet. Hamadeh has said that he is pro-life. In March, the state passed a law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, with protecting the mother’s life and physical health as the only exception. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Pending court rulings, it is unclear whether Arizona will follow the 1864 version, or the one passed in March. But in either case, health care providers are at risk, and pregnant women are not. The pre-statehood law criminalizes any action "procuring a misscarriage" as an offense that can put Arizonans in prison for two to five years. Jenn Piatt, an Arizona State University research scholar specializing in public health law, said the law would imprison only people who provide abortions. "Generally speaking, the 1901 pre-statehood law would subject health care providers to potential criminal sentences, if it eventually is found enforceable," Piatt said. "The way the law is drafted indicates that the law does not specifically aim at targeting a pregnant woman or pregnant person for prosecution." The 1864 law, which was codified in 1901, faces legal challenges. Although a Sept. 22 county Superior Court ruling allowed the pre-statehood law to take effect, the ruling was blocked two weeks later after the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted a stay filed by Planned Parenthood Arizona. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 Arizona’s more recent abortion law also has penalties for physicians, but rather than specifying jail time, the law punishes them with a $10,000 fine and the removal of their medical license. There is no exception for rape or incest. The law specifically says the pregnant woman will not be prosecuted. Hamadeh’s campaign said Mayes is wrong to focus on the penalties because enforcing the law would fall outside the authority of the attorney general’s office. "The attorney general does not have primary jurisdiction to enforce the abortion criminal provisions," Hamadeh’s campaign said in a statement. "Instead the authority falls on the county attorneys." That generally reflects the state’s rules, Piatt said. "The Arizona attorney general’s position on an abortion ban may differ from county prosecutors in Arizona," said Piatt. "Those county prosecutors retain their own prosecutorial discretion and may choose either to bring or not to bring specific charges." However, Piatt noted that attorneys general can negotiate a shared approach with the counties, as they hold "supervisory authority" over county attorneys. Attorneys general also have their own prosecutors who could step in, especially if a criminal activity crosses county lines. That could occur, for example, if a pregnant woman lived in one county and the abortion provider lived in another. Our Ruling Mayes said that Hamadeh said he would "lock up doctors, nurses, pharmacists" and "punish women for abortion." Hamadeh has said he would enforce state law, whatever it may be. Whether the abortion law from 1864 or the one passed this year prevails, those who assist in performing abortions face criminal penalities. Under the older law, providers risk imprisonment; under the 2022 law, they don’t. Under neither law would the pregnant woman herself face that risk. Part of Mayes’s claim is accurate, but it ignores important information. We rate this claim Half True.

Said Katie Hobbs “fought to” “prevent students from learning (about) the Pledge of Allegiance, Constitution, Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence. Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for Arizona governor, said her Democratic opponent, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, voted on a bill that would prevent students from learning the Pledge of Allegiance, Constitution, Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence. These allegations were in a three-minute-long video that Lake posted to her Twitter account on Sept. 20, 2022. "She wants to purge the pledge, anthem and Constitution from our schools," Lake said. Did Hobbs vote against teaching students about these historical documents? The legislative record shows that she did not. Lake said she was referring to Senate Bill 1289. The bill, which went through the Arizona legislature in 2018 and became law, amended an existing statute. The existing language allowed teachers and school administrators to display or read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Pledge of Allegiance, along with other documents. SB1289 added language to the bill that would allow school staff to display historical documents that refer to God, specifically "In God we trust'' and "Ditat Deus," the state motto, which is Latin for "God enriches." Hobbs' vote against this amendment did not keep students from learning about any of the previously listed documents. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 "It is common in politics to try and package items so that a legislator voting against one of them is accused of voting against all," said David Alexander Bateman, an associate professor of government at Cornell University. Bateman added that specifically adding the references to God could raise constitutional questions about the separation of religion and state. We reached out to the Lake campaign and did not hear back. Our ruling Kari Lake said that Katie Hobbs tried to "purge the pledge, anthem and Constitution from our schools." Hobbs voted against Senate Bill 1289. This bill amended existing language in a statute to include "In God we Trust" and the state motto "Ditat deus", which means "God enriches." Her vote would not have kept teachers from discussing other core U.S. documents. We rate this claim False.

Julie Powell died from the COVID-19 vaccine Days after the death of food writer Julie Powell, social media posts are suggesting the 49 year old perished from the COVID-19 vaccine. Powell, a bestselling author and blogger whose writing provided the basis for the 2009 movie "Julie & Julia," died Oct. 26 in her upstate New York home, according to her obituary in The New York Times. A Nov. 2 Instagram post showed out-of-context screenshots from Powell’s Twitter account in which she talked about receiving a COVID-19 booster shot as well as being diagnosed with a common and harmless medical condition called "black hairy tongue." "Damn," read the caption on the Instagram post, "Are they starting to drop like flies or is that just me? #homepage #clotshot #juliepowell #blacktongue #vaccinated #nuremberg2" The post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Powell’s husband, Eric, told the Times his wife died of cardiac arrest. He did not mention the COVID-19 vaccine. Eric Powell could not immediately be reached by PolitiFact. The post highlighted several tweets Julie Powell shared in 2021 about COVID-19 vaccines, and an Oct. 25 tweet, her last, in which she described waking up with what doctors said was a harmless tongue condition. In the Feb. 26, 2021, tweet, highlighted by the post Powell referenced some optimism at the idea of vaccines becoming more widely available. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 On May 8, 2021, she tweeted that she was feeling "a little noshy" after getting a vaccine. On Dec. 18, 2021, she responded to a post about a booster shot by saying that she would be getting hers on Christmas Eve. PolitiFact was unable to independently verify which vaccine Powell received or whether she was inoculated with one of the updated bivalent COVID-19 boosters, which were made available in September. The Instagram post appears to be nodding at a rare heart-related side effect linked to COVID-19 vaccines, myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle. Health officials say contracting COVID-19 poses a much greater heart risk than receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The National Institutes of Health said the benefits of getting vaccinated "markedly outweigh the very small risk of vaccine-related myocarditis." The NIH also said the risk of myocarditis linked with COVID-19 illness is several times greater than the risk from vaccination, and is often more serious. Our ruling An Instagram post drew on Powell’s old tweets about getting vaccinated to suggest that the vaccines caused Powell's death. Powell’s husband told The New York Times that his wife died of cardiac arrest. We find no evidence to suggest the vaccine was to blame. We rate this Fals

"On my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks. Just days before the close of the midterm elections, President Joe Biden touted his commitment to "protecting Social Security and Medicare and lowering prescription drug costs." But as he spoke in Hallandale Beach, Florida, Biden went factually overboard praising his own actions on Social Security. "On my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks," he said at the Nov. 1 community center event. That is inaccurate: Under a longstanding law, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments occur automatically, based on a formula tied to inflation. Seniors have received increases nearly every year for the last 10 years. The White House did not respond to our request for an explanation of Biden’s remarks. The White House also made a separate but similar statement on Twitter that prompted criticism. "Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership," the White House said in the tweet, which it later deleted after Twitter attached a note saying the tweet lacked context. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 19, 2022 in social media posts A House Republican plan says that if the GOP wins the majority, “Retirees who have a pension, IRAs, 401k, disabled veteran benefits will be ineligible for Social Security benefits.” By Louis Jacobson • October 21, 2022 Biden doesn’t deserve credit for the increase, which is set by a law approved in 1972. The amount of the automatic cost-of-living increase is determined by how much the consumer price index rises from the third quarter of the previous year to the third quarter of the current year. The provision took effect in 1975. Prior to that, benefits had to be increased by congressional action. In each of the past 10 years, Social Security recipients received a cost-of-living adjustment, except for 2016, when the inflation rate was low enough that no adjustment was necessary. !function(e,i,n,s){var t="InfogramEmbeds",d=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];if(window[t]&&window[t].initialized)window[t].process&&window[t].process();else if(!e.getElementById(n)){var o=e.createElement("script");o.async=1,o.id=n,o.src="https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js",d.parentNode.insertBefore(o,d)}}(document,0,"infogram-async"); With inflation currently at a four-decade high, the Social Security Administration announced a cost-of-living increase of 8.7% for 2023, a bigger percentage than any year since 1981. Our ruling Biden said, "On my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks." In reality, Social Security recipients have received an inflation adjustment for nine of the past 10 years. The adjustments are based on a key inflation measure, as mandated by a 1972 law. We rate the statement Pants on Fir

"PayPal has reinstated its policy to fine users $2,500 directly from their accounts if they spread 'misinformation.' Has PayPal secretly resurrected a policy that the company said in October it erroneously released — and then corrected? No. But facts didn’t stand in the way of this viral Instagram post: "BREAKING: PayPal has reinstated its policy to fine users $2,500 directly from their accounts if they spread ‘misinformation,’" an image shared Oct. 27 said. The post showed a screenshot of an Oct. 27 headline from The Gateway Pundit, a conservative news site. "Canceling my account!" the post’s caption said. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Oct. 27 article in The Gateway Pundit claimed PayPal has updated its User Agreement to fine users $2,500 if they provide "false, inaccurate or misleading information." But that’s not how it works. The only time PayPal institutes fines is when users have violated PayPay’s Acceptable Use Policy, which outlines specific prohibited activities. The list of prohibited activities does not include spreading misinformation. And when fines are levied, they are not for violations per se, but for damages related to "investigatory costs when sellers engage in activities that violate the (Acceptable Use Policy), like fraud, counterfeiting or other illegal activity," according to PayPal. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 The Gateway Pundit article appeared to conflate PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy with its User Agreement, which are separate documents. The User Agreement does warn sellers not to "provide false, inaccurate or misleading information" under its restricted activities section. But that is included in a list of activities prohibited in connection with "use of our websites, your PayPal account, the PayPal services," and it’s listed alongside other prohibited activities such as selling counterfeit goods and sending or receiving fraudulent funds. If fines are levied, it’s for "administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners" as a result of a seller engaging in illegal or fraudulent activity, according to PayPal. Also, it’s not a new or reinstated policy. A PayPal spokesperson told PolitiFact that has been a longstanding provision in its User Agreement for several years. The provision is in each version of the agreement going back to at least 2013. The confusion began in early October, when PayPal said it mistakenly published changes to its Acceptable Use Policy that it later described as inaccurate. The changes said that misinformation was a prohibited activity on the site and users would be fined $2,500 for violations. "PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy," the company said in an Oct. 8 statement sent to news outlets. We rate the claim that PayPal has "reinstated its policy to fine users $2,500" for "spreading misinformation" Fals

“Two far-right websites attributed to David DePape to smear conservatives were fabricated — they were created Friday. Since the Oct. 28 attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, at their San Francisco home, news organizations have reported on two blogs written by a user who called himself "daviddepape." That’s the same name as the man who has been criminally charged in the incident. But some social media and blog posts have claimed that the sites were fabricated to vilify conservatives. "Two far-right websites attributed to David DePape to smear conservatives were fabricated — they were created Friday and deleted Saturday," the Oct. 30 post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Both blogs — called Frenly Frens and The Loving God — are no longer online, but parts of the sites were archived after the Pelosi attack and some media outlets reviewed them before they went dark. The Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library that saves billions of web pages over time, has files showing the blogs were not created the day of the attack. And there’s no evidence to support the claim that they were created to smear conservatives. The Washington Post reported that at least one site contained "hundreds of blog posts in recent months sharing memes in support of fringe commentators and far-right personalities. Many posts were filled with screeds against Jews, Black people, Democrats, the media and transgender people." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in Instagram post California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!” By Michael Majchrowicz • October 31, 2022 The Washington Post traced the Frenly Frens, which was registered in August, to DePape’s name and address. An archived version of the other blog shows posts from August. Vice News detailed the steps it took to trace the blogs to DePape. "Public records indicate that there’s only one person named David DePape in the state of California," Vice said. "An SFgate article from 2013 about a Bay Area woman named Gypsy Taub, who was planning a naked wedding, identified ‘David DePape’ as the best man and a ‘hemp jewelry maker.’ The article also reported the two lived together. In 2007, a blog under the name David DePape posted several articles on a crafting site about making hemp jewelry. One post links to The Loving God." Vice News said it found identical posts on Frenly Frens and on The Loving God, including one post featuring a screenshot of a 2016 email to Taub. "Some of the most frequent posts are screenshots of text message arguments that he’s had with a family member," Vice said. We rate claims that these blogs were created the same day Pelosi was attacked to smear conservatives Pants on Fire!

Bill Gates’ daughters aren’t vaccinated Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been a vocal proponent of COVID-19 vaccines, among other inoculations. But a recent Instagram post claims that his own daughters aren’t even vaccinated. "PHOEBE ADELE GATES: the 20 years old daughter of Bill Gates VACCINATION STATUS: NOT VACCINATE NOT EVEN CHILDHOOD VACCINES," the Oct. 31 Instagram post said, with spelling and grammatical errors. "Jennifer Katharine Gates the eldest daughter of Bill Gates. She is currently a second-year medical student at Icahn School of Medicine in New York. Vaccination status: NOT VACCINATED even CHILDHOOD VACCINES." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We’ve fact-checked a similar allegation before. In 2018, we rated a claim that Gates "refused to vaccinate his children" Pants on Fire! At the time, the children of Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates were 15, 18 and 22 years old. In February of that year, Melinda French Gates said in an Instagram post: "When my first child, Jenn, was born, over 800,000 children were dying each year of rotavirus — a preventable, curable disease. It broke my heart to imagine watching your child get sick and knowing that medicine could save her — if only you had access to it. That was a clarifying moment for me. No child should die a preventable death. Bill and I have dedicated our lives to reducing the number who do." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 12, 2022 in an Instagram post Pfizer executive “admits” vaccine was never tested for preventing transmission. By Jeff Cercone • October 13, 2022 In April 2019, she posted on Facebook that "all three of my children are fully vaccinated." And in 2021, Jennifer Gates posted on Instagram about getting her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. RELATED VIDEO "Sadly the vaccine did NOT implant my genius father into my brain — if only mRNA had that power," she wrote with a winking emoji, poking fun at conspiracy theories about the vaccine. CNN reported at the time that the post, which is no longer online, showed "the 24-year-old medical student wearing a mask and holding up an ‘I got my COVID-19 vaccine’ sticker." The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told PolitiFact in an email that the Gates are "all vaccinated." We rate claims that Phoebe and Jennifer Gates aren’t vaccinated against COVID-19 or childhood diseases Pants on Fire!

David DePape “stripped down to his underwear, grabbed a hammer, and jogged all the way to Nancy Pelosi’s house. A recent Instagram post expresses skepticism about allegations that David DePape broke into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home on Oct. 28 and attacked her husband, Paul — and also paints an incredible picture. "So if we’re to believe the media…" the Oct. 31 post says, DePape "stripped down to his underwear, grabbed a hammer and JOGGED all the way to Nancy Pelosi’s house." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) KTVU-TV, , a San Francisco Fox News affiliate, initially and incorrectly reported that police found DePape in his underwear, leading to an avalanche of misinformation. But that story has been corrected with a note that says an earlier version "misstated what clothing the suspect was wearing when officers found him." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in Instagram post California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!” By Michael Majchrowicz • October 31, 2022 DePape was wearing shorts when San Francisco police officers restrained him, according to a federal criminal complaint filed against DePape. Paul Pelosi was wearing "a loose-fitting pajama shirt and boxer shorts," San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said during an Oct. 31 press conference. When DePape broke into the Pelosis’ residence, the complaint says, DePape had "zip ties, tape, rope, and at least one hammer with him." We found no evidence that DePape "jogged" to the Pelosis, as the post claims. The complaint says DePape lived in the garage of a residence in Richmond, California, which is at least a 16-mile journey by foot, including a ferry ride, to the Pacific Heights neighborhood where the Pelosis live. We rate claims that DePape stripped to his underwear and jogged to the Pelosis with a hammer False.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “doesn’t even have surveillance cameras around her house. Claims about the security cameras at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco residence have come in hot, fast and false since the Oct. 28 attack on her husband, Paul Pelosi. We’ve already debunked claims that security cameras at the home malfunctioned during the incident, and that the Pelosis were refusing to turn over security footage to authorities. A third claim casts doubt on the assault, in which police say an intruder hit Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer. "Sooo… the 3rd most powerful person in American politics doesn’t even have surveillance cameras around her house?" reads a screenshot of a tweet from the executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee launched by former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. An Instagram post sharing the screenshot was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) As we’ve previously reported, U.S. Capitol Police have access to the security camera feed from the Pelosis’ home in San Francisco. Politico reported Oct. 31 that police are reviewing what happened Oct. 28, including looking at their command center, "which was monitoring the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home, according to a person familiar," Politico said. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in Instagram post California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!” By Michael Majchrowicz • October 31, 2022 The Washington Post has since published new details about what the Capitol Police knew and when. In a Nov. 1 story, the Post reveals that officers in the command center "were going through their routines early Friday morning, cycling through live feeds from the department’s 1,800 cameras used to monitor the nearby Capitol complex as well as some points beyond," when an officer noticed a screen showing police lights flashing outside the Pelosis’ home in San Francisco. "The officer in D.C. quickly pulled up additional angles from around Pelosi’s home and began to backtrack, watching recordings from the minutes before San Francisco police arrived," the Post reported. "There, on camera, was a man with a hammer, breaking a glass panel and entering the speaker’s home." Capitol Police first installed cameras around the home more than eight years ago, the Post story said. The speaker, a Democrat, also has around-the-clock security detail. But when she left San Francisco for Washington, D.C., last week "much of the security left with her, and the officers in Washington stopped continuously monitoring video feeds outside her house." Nancy Pelosi wasn’t home when the break-in occurred. We rate claims that Pelosi doesn’t have surveillance cameras at her house Pants on Fir

If Proposal 3 passes, it would allow children to undergo "gender-change therapy without parental consent Opponents of Proposal 3 — a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the Michigan Constitution — call it a "Pandora’s box" that goes far beyond restoring the national right to an abortion lost when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer. The proposed constitutional amendment — which appears on the Michigan ballot as "Proposal 22-3" — would allow children to undergo "gender change therapy without parental consent," Citizens to Support MI Women & Children claims in a tweet. Citizens to Support MI Women & Children is a coalition campaigning against Proposal 3 that includes prominent abortion rights opponents, including Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference. One television ad from the coalition shows boxes of a medication called Triptorelin with fluid dripping from the needle before scanning over the faces of young children. "This drug blocks a child from going through puberty," the narrator says. "It’s the first step in gender change therapy. Clinics prescribe this drug in Michigan. If Proposal 3 passes, minors as young as 10 or 11 will be able to receive this prescription without the consent of their parents or their parents even knowing." What Proposal 3 actually says If voters adopt Proposal 3 in the upcoming Nov. 8 midterm, it would add about 300 words to the Michigan Constitution. The amendment contains no explicit reference to gender-affirming care or parental consent. "Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy," the amendment states. It provides some examples of what the right to reproductive freedom includes: "prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care." An attorney for Reproductive Freedom for All — the group behind the proposed constitutional amendment — cast doubt on opponents’ assertions that Proposal 3 would affect gender-affirming care. "They’re spending an awful lot of time and effort talking about matters that do not relate to pregnancy which are outside the scope of this proposal," Steve Liedel said during a recent news briefing. He said Reproductive Freedom for All has asked stations to stop airing the ad from Citizens to Support MI Women & Children that claims Proposal 3 would allow children to obtain prescriptions for puberty blockers without their parents’ consent or knowledge. Liedel said that "the status of minors that haven’t even entered puberty and are not capable of becoming pregnant until they have completed puberty has nothing to do with the rights addressed by the proposal." Christen Pollo, a spokesperson for Citizens to Support MI Women & Children, defended the ad’s claims. "A constitutional right to ‘sterilization’ surely includes a right to be sterilized to align one’s sex and gender identity," she wrote in an email. "The majority of voters do not support a 12-year-old girl’s right to sterilization without her parent’s notice or consent. But that is the implication of giving this right to every ‘individual,’ no matter their age." If Michigan voters adopt Proposal 3 a future court could, in theory, hear a legal challenge from a minor seeking gender-affirming care without their parents’ consent. In such a case, courts also interpret the amendment’s text. That could boil down to two questions: — Does the right to reproductive freedom protected by the amendment include gender-affirming treatments and procedures? — If so, would the constitutional amendment bar parental consent requirements for minors seeking care? Independent legal and medical experts answered no to both. A court would consider what the amendment’s drafters intended when they wrote it. Because those backing the amendment have denied that it has anything to do with gender-affirming care, it’s unlikely courts will interpret it that way, according to Catherine Archibald, a University of Detroit Mercy law professor who specializes in LGBT legal issues and gender law. Gender-affirming care included in right to make decisions "about all matters relating to pregnancy"? Dr. Daniel Shumer is a pediatric endocrinologist at Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor. He is an expert in treating children with issues including hormone problems and puberty challenges and also focuses on transgender health. He told the Free Press there is not a direct tie between sterilization and gender-affirming care, and parents remain crucial to health decisions that affect their children. "Proposal 3 is unrelated to care for children and adolescents with differences in gender identity. Parents play a critical role in decision-making when it comes to gender-affirming care. Parental involvement, and consent, is required for hormone care in minors and passage of Proposal 3 will have no bearing on this," Shumer said. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 He and Anna Kirkland, a lawyer and professor of women’s and gender studies at the University of Michigan, acknowledged guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. It’s considered the preeminent medical body for collecting evidence to establish best practices in the treatment of transgender patients. The organization's standards of care specifically outline the crucial need for parental involvement. "We recommend when gender-affirming medical or surgical treatments are indicated for adolescents, health care professionals working with transgender and gender diverse adolescents involve parent(s)/guardian(s) in the assessment and treatment process, unless their involvement is determined to be harmful to the adolescent or not feasible," the 2022 standards state. The standards also note that while some care may prevent a patient from reproducing in the future, other care does not, and it’s crucial for patients to understand outcomes well before final medical decisions are made. "Age has a strong, albeit imperfect, correlation with cognitive and psychosocial development and may be a useful objective marker for determining the potential timing of interventions," the standards state. Kirkland noted puberty blockers do not cause infertility, nor do they create "sterilization." Kirkland suggested those who crafted the amendment included the word "sterilization" to combat forced sterilization, noting state-sponsored eugenics programs across the country. "Given this very recent and terrible history, of course sterilization would be mentioned in a list of reproductive freedoms that people need to control themselves rather than have the state control, and historically that has meant the right not to be sterilized coercively," she said. Legal experts also argue that it’s far-fetched to interpret the right to "sterilization" in Proposal 3 as encompassing gender-affirming care. Mae Kuykendall, a Michigan State University law professor who specializes in constitutional law, said the amendment "clearly confines the idea of sterilization to a concern about pregnancy," in an email. Transgender care doesn’t fit the bill, she said. Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor focused on constitutional law who joined a brief asking the Michigan Supreme Court to put Proposal 3 on the ballot, called opponents' claims that Proposal 3 encompasses gender-affirming care "divorced from language." "I am not familiar with any lawyer or any health care professional who looks at the word sterilization and thinks, ‘ah yes, that includes gender-affirming care,’" she said. "Even if it was encompassed in the right … you would still have greater latitude to restrict rights vis-a-vis minors." Minors’ rights routinely regulated in ways rights of adults are not Citizens to Support MI Women & Children has argued that the amendment would repeal parental consent laws. An attorney with the ACLU of Michigan — one of the groups behind the Reproductive Freedom for All amendment — previously told the Free Press/PolitiFact Michigan that a future court could decide the fate of a Michigan law requiring those performing abortions on minors to obtain the consent of the minor’s parent guardian. The law also allows minors to petition a court, bypassing the parental consent requirement if approved by a judge. Reproductive Freedom for All has since argued that Proposal 3 would leave parental consent requirements untouched if voters adopt it. Legal experts weighing in on the matter argue that parental consent laws in place regarding medical treatments for minors don’t conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in the Michigan Constitution. They expect parental consent requirements to survive legal challenges if voters adopt Proposal 3. They point out that constitutional rights often don’t distinguish between the rights of minors and the rights of adults but that state and federal courts routinely allow lawmakers to establish different rules and regulations for children. Litman gave an example: The U.S. Constitution includes the right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean children can purchase guns. Proposal 3 on its own doesn’t invalidate any state laws, including those regarding parental consent. That would require action by the judiciary or changes to laws currently in place by the Legislature to ensure they comply with the constitutional amendment. Our ruling Proposal 3 does not explicitly state that minors have a right to gender-affirming care without parental consent. The proposed constitutional amendment’s drafters deny that it provides such a right and legal experts don’t foresee a future court siding with opponents of the amendment who claim it includes an unfettered right for minors to access puberty blockers or gender-affirming surgical procedures without parental consent. Medical experts say that Proposal 3 does not touch on gender-affirming care that requires parental involvement. The burden of proof lies with opponents to provide evidence supporting their claims based on current information. Instead, they rely on hypothetical conjectures about how the amendment might be interpreted. Opponents’ claim that Proposal 3 would allow minors to undergo "gender change therapy without parental consent" is not accurate

At the Pelosi house, “the glass it seems was broken from the inside to the out, so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a break out. Former President Donald Trump elevated a conspiracy theory about the violent assault against Paul Pelosi, falsely saying it wasn’t the result of a break-in at the Pelosis’ San Francisco house. During an interview on "The Chris Stigall Podcast," Trump told Stigall that "weird things" had been happening in the Pelosi household in recent weeks. Paul Pelosi is married to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Trump then suggested that reports of a break-in were wrong. "The glass it seems was broken from the inside to the out, so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a break out. I don’t know, you hear the same things I do," Trump said Nov. 1. Trump’s claim echoes conspiracy theories being pushed by right-wing pundits and amplified on social media. An Oct. 31 Instagram post shared a photo of a segment of the Fox News show "Tucker Carlson Tonight." The left side of the photo shows Carlson speaking, on the right side, people see aerial footage of the Pelosi home. "NOTICE: The broken glass is on (the) outside! THAT MEANS THE BREAK IN WAS STAGED! Broken from inside out!" the post’s caption said. That post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Investigators have provided many details about the incident that happened in the early morning Oct. 28. There is no indication the break-in was staged. The FBI and the San Francisco Police Department found that 42-year old David DePape’s attack left 82-year old Paul Pelosi unconscious with serious injuries, including a skull fracture. San Francisco Police Chief William Scott said in an Oct. 28 press conference that DePape "forced entry into a rear door at the rear of the Pelosi home." On Nov. 1, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Scott about Trump’s claim. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 15, 2022 in Instagram post Seattle authorities are investigating a string of serial killings. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 17, 2022 Cooper said: "As you may know, the former president has called into question the circumstances of the attack. You've said previously, this was a break-in. That is still accurate, yes?" "Yes. That is absolutely accurate. This was a break-in. There is no doubt in anybody's mind it had anything to do with this investigation of whether or not this was a break-in," Scott said. "This was a break-in, plain and simple. Evidence is overwhelmingly clear and I don't know why anybody would say otherwise, but I am here to tell you that it was a break-in." A Justice Department criminal complaint and arrest warrant said that DePape told authorities he "broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer." "When officers removed DePape from Pelosi’s residence, police body worn camera footage showed a glass door that appeared to be laminated glass, broken near the door handle," the report said. The federal complaint also said Paul Pelosi told officers that DePape came into the bedroom where he was sleeping and woke him up, saying "that he wanted to talk to ‘Nancy.’" DePape told officers that he wanted to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage, talk to her, and break "her kneecaps" if she lied. Nancy Pelosi was not in the house when the attack happened. The federal criminal complaint said DePape had zip ties, tape, rope, and at least one hammer with him that morning. DePape has been charged with attempted murder, residential burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, false imprisonment of an elder, and threats to a public official and their family, interim San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said Oct. 31 at a press conference. DePape also faces federal charges of assault on the immediate family member of a federal official and attempted kidnapping of a federal official. Our ruling Trump claimed that at the Pelosi house, "the glass it seems was broken from the inside to the out, so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a break out." This is refuted by police and accounts Pelosi and DePape told officials. A Justice Department criminal complaint says DePape told authorities he broke into the house through a glass door and that he wanted to take Nancy Pelosi hostage. Local and federal law enforcement authorities have charged DePape with numerous crimes, including attempted murder, assault on the immediate family member of a federal official and attempted kidnapping of a federal official. Trump’s claim isn’t supported by evidence. We rate it Pants on Fir

“Marco Rubio le ha votado en contra a los Dreamers” En Facebook, un anuncio de campaña en español muestra a una mujer venezolana llamando al senador republicano de Florida, Marco Rubio "hipócrita". La mujer afirma que Rubio, quien busca la reelección, le ha quitado "la posibilidad a los Dreamers". La palabra "Dreamers" se utiliza comúnmente para describir, en términos generales, a los inmigrantes que vinieron a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal cuando eran niños. "Voten correctamente. Por que al final tu quieres a alguien que te represente y apoye los valores y ayude a solucionar nuestros problemas", la mujer dice en el anuncio del 18 de octubre publicado por el Florida Immigrant Coalition, una alianza de organizaciones que abogan por los inmigrantes. El subtítulo de la publicación crítica el historial de votos de Rubio frente al programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés). El programa fue creado durante la administración del Presidente Barack Obama, y evita la deportación de aquellos inmigrantes que entraron a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal cuando eran niños. "Marco Rubio le ha votado en contra a los Dreamers, jóvenes inmigrantes traídos a Estados Unidos de pequeños, para que pueden tener una oportunidad digna a su ciudadanía. Al hacer esto le está tronchando sus sueños y su futuro", dice el subtítulo. Como evidencia para respaldar la declaración, el grupo Florida Immigrant Coalition le envió a PolitiFact un artículo del Tampa Bay Times sobre unos votos de Rubio en febrero de 2018. Rubio votó en contra de dos propuestas que incluían un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los beneficiarios de DACA. Pero también apoyó otra propuesta que también incluía un camino a la ciudadanía para estos inmigrantes. La mayor diferencia entre las propuestas tenía que ver con temas de seguridad fronteriza e inmigración legal, no con la posible ciudadanía para los inmigrantes que llegaron al país cuando eran niños. Votos de Rubio sobre DACA en 2018 En 2017, la administración del Presidente Donald Trump intentó terminar el programa de acción diferida. Ese mismo año un grupo de fiscales generales a nivel estatal demandaron a la administración para mantener el programa de pie. En 2020, el caso llegó a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, la cual falló en contra de la decisión del gobierno de acabar con el programa. Mientras el caso estaba en litigio, el congreso trabajó para crear una solución legislativa para los beneficiarios del programa. Trump le había otorgado a los congresistas un plazo hasta el 5 de marzo de 2018 para finalizar una propuesta apoyada por ambos partidos. La administración de Trump publicó una estrategia política que apoyaría, la cual incluía: financiamiento para proyectos de seguridad fronteriza, estatus legal para los beneficiarios del programa de acción diferida, límites en la inmigracion de familiares y la eliminación del programa de visas de diversidad. El 15 de febrero de 2018, el senado votó sobre tres propuestas que proveerían un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los beneficiarios de DACA. Ninguna fue aprobada. Esto es lo que cada propuesta incluía: Featured Fact-check Adam Laxalt stated on November 20, 2022 in an ad “Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • November 3, 2022 Uniting and Securing America Act: Esta propuesta bipartidista, patrocinada por el Senador Respublicano John McCain de Arizona y el Senador Chris Coons, Demócrata de Delaware, creaba un camino hacia la ciudadanía para 1.8 millones de inmigrantes que llegaron a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal como niños, pero no incluía financiamiento para un muro en la frontera. La propuesta falló con un voto de 54-45. Immigration Security and Opportunity Act: Esta propuesta patrocinada por un grupo de 16 senadores de ambos partidos proveía un camino a la ciudadanía para 1.8 millones de inmigrantes, ofrecía $25 millones para un muro en la frontera sur del país, y prevenía que los beneficiarios de DACA patrocinaran a sus padres para un estatus migratorio legal (algo que pueden hacer los residentes permanentes legales del país). La propuesta también falló con un voto de 54-45. Secure And Succeed Act: La propuesta patrocinada por el Senador Chuck Grassley, Republicano de Iowa, y otros senadores Republicanos, era un reflejo de la estrategia de Trump. Proveía un camino a la ciudadanía para 1.8 millones de inmigrantes, ofrecía $25 millones para la frontera sur del país y limitaba la inmigración legal. La propuesta falló con un voto de 52-47. Antes de que los senadores votaran, Trump dijo que no aprobaría ninguna de las dos propuestas bipartidistas. Rubio votó en contra de las dos propuestas bipartidistas y a favor de la propuesta Republicana. "Vote a favor del plan del Senador Grassley porque es el que mejor representa los principios que he y continuó apoyando, incluidas las provisiones para los jóvenes que fueron traídos de manera ilegal al país sin culpa y para la seguridad fronteriza", Rubio dijo en una declaración después del voto. Rubio dijo que tenía la intención de seguir trabajando con los senadores en "una propuesta más limitada" que crearía un sistema permanente para la renovación de los permisos en el programa de acción diferida y que proveería medidas de seguridad fronteriza "significativas". La postura de Rubio sobre DACA a través de los años Desde que se creó el programa de acción diferida, Rubio ha permanecido constante en su opinión que el programa fue creado de manera ilegal y que la rama ejecutiva no tenía la autoridad para crearlo. Rubio ha afirmado que el congreso tiene la responsabilidad de crear una solución permanente para aquellos inmigrantes que llegaron a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal de niños. Ha sido menos consistente en su opinión sobre en qué momento se debe acabar el programa. En ciertos momentos Rubio ha apoyado la idea de que el programa se debe terminar solo después de que se llegue a una solución legislativa. Pero durante su candidatura para la presidencia en el 2015, dijo que terminaría el programa en su primer día como presidente, sin importar si el congreso había llegado a un compromiso. Nuestra calificación El Florida Immigrant Coalition afirmó que "Marco Rubio le ha votado en contra a los Dreamers". En el 2018, Rubio votó en contra de dos propuestas que creaban un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los participantes de DACA. Sin embargo, votó a favor de otra propuesta que también incluía un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los beneficiarios del programa, y añadía más seguridad fronteriza y límites a la inmigracion legal. La afirmación es parcialmente precisa, pero omite detalles importantes o saca las cosas de contexto. Calificamos la declaración como Medio Cierta. Este reportaje también esta disponible en inglé

“One in six local election officials have received threats of violence” and threats against judges have doubled over four years and threats against members of Congress have increased by 10 times over five years The violent attack Oct. 28 on the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by a man who allegedly said "Where is Nancy?" is not an isolated example of threats facing government officials. On NBC’s "Meet the Press" on Oct. 30, host Chuck Todd reeled off examples of instances in which public officials were violently threatened over the past decade. They included the armed man who was arrested near U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home; a man sentenced for making death threats against Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert; and two shootings that targeted congressional members and left U.S. Reps. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and Steve Scalise, R-La., seriously injured. "Since former President Trump's election in 2016, the number of recorded threats against members of Congress has increased by 967%, that is not a typo folks, to more than 9,600 last year," Todd said. Todd asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., what she had learned about the attack against Paul Pelosi. Klobuchar reeled off a list of statistics about threats that public officials face. "One in six local election officials have received threats of violence, doubling the number of threats against judges in just the last four-year period," Klobuchar said. "And then you've got, as you noted, elected officials in Congress, 10 times the amount of threats in a five-year period. This has to end." A spokesperson for Klobuchar sent us a survey of election officials and reports or statements from federal sources about threats faced by court officials or members of Congress. Klobuchar’s numbers are generally correct but require context. The increase in threats directed at public officials are driven by social and political divisions, as well as by how people process misinformation and disinformation, said Javed Ali, an associate professor who teaches courses on national security and domestic terrorism at the University of Michigan. The hardest threats for law enforcement to thwart are those orchestrated by lone actors, like the man who went to Pelosi’s home. "Unless a person is under investigation and on law enforcement’s radar, how would you know they are trying to put their own individual plot in motion?" Ali said. Brennan Center survey found high number of election officials facing threats The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law sponsored a survey of local election officials nationwide and published the results in March. The Brennan Center purchased a list of about 9,000 election officials from the U.S. Vote Foundation and contacted everyone with a deliverable email address, inviting them to participate in the survey. Nearly 600 local election officials from across the country completed the online survey Jan. 31 to Feb. 14. The survey found that 1 in 6 local election officials had experienced threats and more than 3 in 4 reported that they felt threats had increased in recent years. A similar survey was conducted for Brennan in 2021 and found similar results. The threats against election officials followed the dissemination of falsehoods about voting and elections spread on social media and by former President Donald Trump and his allies. An election worker in Georgia said the FBI directed her to go into hiding after she was targeted with threats. Election officials have taken steps to improve security such as installing cameras, adding plexiglass walls around equipment or reception areas and hiring security workers — or, in one case we know of, even wearing a bulletproof vest. Colorado state lawmakers have passed bills since 2020 intended to protect election workers and voters, including a prohibition on openly carrying a firearm within 100 feet of a voting or ballot tabulation site during an election. The Justice Department formed a task force in 2021 to investigate threats. Eight people have been charged, including one that predates the task force. Sam Oliker-Friedland, a former voting rights lawyer at the Justice Department during the Obama and Trump administrations, told PolitiFact that physical security has always been a concern for election officials, but the scale of threats has risen since 2020. He said that local election officials need more money for security and that Congress should pass a proposal by a Senate committee to provide $400 million for election security grants. Oliker-Friedland is now the executive director of the Institute for Responsive Government, an organization providing governments with research, including on election infrastructure. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 Threats against federal court officials have risen Klobuchar’s office also pointed to documents from the U.S. Marshals Service showing that threats against federal court officials are on the rise. The Marshals’ Service 2021 annual report showed in Figure 9 that the number of threats resulting in investigations rose from 363 in 2017 to 1,343 in 2021. That’s between a three- and fourfold increase, even more than the doubling cited by Klobuchar. The report also includes a broader category of inappropriate comments or threats to protected people, which rose from 2,847 in 2017 to 4,511 in 2021. Klobuchar’s office pointed to articles by Reuters and CBS that describe the 4,000 figure as threats against federal judges. However, in the Marshals Service’s description of its duties, it said that it is responsible for the security of 2,700 federal judges and 30,300 federal prosecutors and court officials. A spokesperson for that agency didn’t readily have a number for threats that pertained only to judges compared with other protectees. U.S. Capitol Police have seen an increase in threats against Congress In 2016, Capitol Police investigated approximately 902 threatening communications, according to a letter written in 2017 by the U.S. House Office of the Sergeant at Arms. After Trump took office, threats against lawmakers rose each year for the next five years. Data from the U.S. Capitol Police showed they investigated 3,939 threats against lawmakers in 2017, rising to 9,625 in 2021. The increase of 902 threats in 2016 to 9,625 in 2021 matches Klobuchar’s comment about a tenfold increase. Nearly two years after the attack by pro-Trump supporters on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, threats against lawmakers continue. The New York Times found that for threats that led to indictments, "more than a third were made by Republican or pro-Trump individuals against Democrats or Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to the former president, and nearly a quarter were by Democrats targeting Republicans." The Times said data suggested threats were particularly acute against lawmakers of color — they outspent their white colleagues on security by about $17,500 on average. Why the threats have increased Peter Simi, a sociology professor at Chapman University, said there isn’t a single factor to point to for the increase in threats but attributed it partly to the "Trump effect." Starting in Trump’s 2016 campaign, Trump made comments that an ordinary listener would understand as tolerance for, and sometimes even a favorable disposition toward, physical violence. Threats against high-profile politicians including presidents are not new but threats against lawmakers have surged, said Michael Jensen, principal investigator at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. "Since January 6th, groups like the Proud Boys have shifted their strategy, moving from a national to local focus ahead of the midterm elections," Jensen said. "These actors have mobilized in their communities to threaten and intimidate members of local school and health boards, county representatives, and judges." Threats against lawmakers and other elected representatives are occurring along with an overall increase in political violence in the United States. A recent report by the FBI and Homeland Security shows that domestic terrorism investigations rose from about 1,000 in 2020 to more than 2,700 in 2021, Jensen said. Arrests rose from a little more than 100 to more than 800. "These trends underscore the importance of voting to reinforce democratic processes as the legitimate means of political expression," Jensen said. "Votes can also send a message to political candidates that the mainstreaming of extremism will not be rewarded at the polls. " Our ruling Klobuchar said "one in six local election officials have received threats of violence," that threats against judges have doubled over four years and threats against members of Congress have increased by 10 times over five years. A survey done for the Brennan Center earlier this year of about 600 local election officials nationwide found 1 in 6 faced threats. While Klobuchar singled out judges, federal data shows threats that were investigated against the judiciary and other federal court officials rose between three and four times between 2017 and 2021. The figure is closer to double if we look at a broader category of inappropriate comments and threats. Threats investigated against members of Congress rose from 902 in 2016 to 9,625 in 2021. We rate this statement Mostly True. RELATED: Misinformation fuels false narratives about attack on Paul Pelosi RELATED: No, the Pelosis aren’t withholding surveillance video from police RELATED: Most states don’t explicitly ban guns at polls. Some lawmakers want to change th

Police dispatch audio from Paul Pelosi’s attack was recorded in a Moscow studio Authorities have praised the emergency dispatcher who fielded Paul Pelosi’s 911 call on Oct. 28 after an attacker broke into the San Francisco residence he shares with his wife, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. News organizations have published police radio chatter that followed that call, and at least one Instagram post is making unfounded claims that the audio originated in Russia. Sharing a screenshot of what looks like a headline that said "Police dispatch audio: Paul Pelosi when calling cops said ‘he doesn’t know who the male is but advised that his name is David and he is a friend,’" the Oct. 29 post said: "Russian disinformation. Classic signs. They did the audio in a studio on Moscow." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The headline accurately captures what was relayed in the audio recording of a San Francisco dispatcher, though it doesn’t make clear that David DePape, the man accused of attacking Pelosi, "advised that his name is David and that he is a friend." Pelosi wasn’t saying that DePape was a friend. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 29, 2022 in an Instagram post The Pelosis “are refusing to turn over surveillance video of their home.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 31, 2022 Pelosi’s call "enabled the dispatcher, at 2:32 a.m. Friday, to elevate the call to an emergency, according to officials and police audio dispatches," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Two minutes later, two police officers arrived at the residence and tackled the man identified as DePape "moments after he allegedly struck Paul Pelosi with a hammer." In an Oct. 28 Facebook post, the San Francisco Police Department wrote that the police chief wanted to thank the officers and emergency dispatcher "for their swift action." The federal criminal complaint against DePape details the 911 call San Francisco dispatch received from Pelosi, who was "located at the Pelosi residence in San Francisco, California." There is no evidence to support the claim that the call or police dispatch audio were recorded in a studio in Moscow. We rate that claim Pants on Fir

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem “have said that they will only honor the results of an election if they agree with it. With the first ad from her anti-Donald Trump political action committee, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., attacked two Trump-endorsed Republican candidates in Arizona as being election deniers. The 30-second spot from The Great Task was released Oct. 28, less than two weeks before Election Day. It begins by showing Cheney speaking at an event. "I don’t know that I have ever voted for a Democrat, but if I lived in Arizona, I absolutely would," she says. "You have a candidate for governor, in Kari Lake, you have a candidate for secretary of state, in Mark Finchem, both of whom have said that they will only honor the results of an election if they agree with it." Cheney continues: "And if you care about the survival of our republic, we cannot give people power who will not honor elections. We must have elected officials who honor that responsibility." The clips are lightly edited remarks Cheney made Oct. 5 at the McCain Institute, a think tank named after the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Lake and Finchem filed a lawsuit based on false claims of problems with vote-counting machines that would have required Arizona officials to count Nov. 8 ballots by hand. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in August. They have also made statements suggesting they would refuse to accept election results. Both Lake, a former Phoenix TV news anchor, and Finchem, a state representative, are running for open seats. Lake is running against Democrat Katie Hobbs, Arizona’s secretary of state. Finchem’s challenger is Democrat Adrian Fontes, a former Maricopa County election official. Lake wouldn’t commit to accepting result of her race Lake, in a CNN interview Oct. 16, refused to commit to accepting the results of her election. There was this exchange between her and anchor-reporter Dana Bash: Bash: "Will you accept the results of the election in your election? Will you accept the results?" Lake: "Can we talk about issues? I came on here thinking we were going to talk about the issues facing Arizonans right now." Moments later, Bash tried again. Bash: "Will you accept the results of your election, Ms. Lake?" Lake: After making claims about Hobbs, Lake said: "I'm not going to lose this election, because the people of Arizona will never elect a racist like Katie Hobbs. They just won't." Bash: "My question is, will you accept the results of your election in November?" Lake: "I'm going to win the election, and I will accept that result." Bash: "If you lose, will you accept that?" Lake: "I'm going to win the election, and I will accept that result …" Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 Later in October, Lake said in an ABC News interview that she would accept her election result, under certain circumstances. Here was her exchange with reporter Jonathan Karl: Karl: "But let me ask you, why it is that you have not said — or maybe you'll do it now — you have not said that you will accept the certified results of this election, even if you lose this election?" Lake: "I will accept the results of this election if we have a fair, honest and transparent election. Absolutely, 100%." Karl: "So, if you were to lose — and you're ahead — but if you were to lose, and you went out and you had all your appeals, they went through —" Lake: "As long as it's fair, honest and transparent." Karl: "And certified …" Lake: "It looks like my opponent might have to determine that." Karl: "Well, she is the secretary —" Lake: "That's an interesting conundrum, isn't it?" Lake’s campaign said in an email to PolitiFact that Lake "feels very confident that she will win," that the voters won’t elect Hobbs and that she "will absolutely accept the results of a fair, honest and transparent election." Finchem vowed not to concede Finchem vowed at a June fundraiser before winning his August primary that he would not concede. He said: "Ain't gonna be no concession speech coming from this guy. I'm going to demand a 100% hand count if there is the slightest hint that there's an impropriety. And I will urge the next governor to do the same." Finchem has also not committed to certifying Arizona’s vote in the 2024 presidential election if he were to be elected secretary of state. Finchem told PBS that he would certify that election "as long as all lawful votes are counted and all votes cast are under the law," but did not respond to follow-up questions about who decides if the votes were lawful or whether he would accept results of court proceedings. Finchem has falsely claimed Trump won the 2020 election and supported bills to decertify some counties’ 2020 election results. Finchem’s campaign did not respond to our messages. Cheney, who was elected to Wyoming’s lone House seat in 2016, announced her leadership PAC after she was defeated in the August primary by Republican Harriet Hageman, whom Trump endorsed. The PAC’s aim is to "educate the American people about the ongoing threat to our republic" and to mobilize against any Trump campaign for president. Our ruling Cheney claimed Lake and Finchem "have said that they will only honor the results of an election if they agree with it." Lake has insisted she will win her race and said she would accept that result. Asked in one October interview whether she would accept a losing result, she declined to answer. Asked in another how she would respond if she lost, she said she’d accept the result "as long as it’s fair, honest and transparent." Before winning his August primary, Finchem vowed he would not concede, saying he would "demand a 100% hand count if there is the slightest hint that there's an impropriety." Cheney’s claim is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True. RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Arizona RELATED: How could U.S. voting be affected if election deniers win? RELATED: Fact-checking ads in the 2022 election campaig

Security cameras at Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home malfunctioned “for the duration of the break-in, so officials have ended their investigation. Amid misinformation about the Oct. 28 assault of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, in their San Francisco home are unfounded claims about security footage. We previously debunked an Instagram post that said the Pelosis refused to "turn over surveillance video of their home." Another Instagram post alleges there was no footage at all. "BREAKING," the Oct. 30 post says. "Unfortunately all 28 security cameras at the Pelosi residence malfunctioned for the duration of the break-in, so officials have ended their investigation and concluded UltraMAGA white supremacy was the motivation." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi, told PolitiFact this claim was fabricated. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 15, 2022 in Instagram post Seattle authorities are investigating a string of serial killings. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 17, 2022 We found no credible reports, from the government, police or media, to suggest otherwise. Politico reported that the U.S. Capitol Police has access to the security camera feed from the San Francisco home. The police are conducting a review of the Oct. 28 incident, including looking at their command center, "which was monitoring the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home, according to a person familiar," Politico said. Officials have not ended their investigation into the attack. The FBI San Francisco field office, the Capitol Police and the San Francisco Police Department are all investigating. David DePape, 42, the man accused in the assault, faces state and federal charges including assault, attempted kidnapping, attempted murder and elder abuse. We rate this post Pants on Fire!

“If outer space was a vacuum, astronauts would train in vacuum chambers. Not in swimming pools. Outer Space is a hoax. Outer space is not real, or at least that’s the claim an Instagram post makes after calling into question long-established training methods for astronauts. The Oct. 25 post is a collage of three stacked photos showing a digital rendering of space, a NASA vacuum chamber and an astronaut submerged in water. "If outer space was a vacuum, astronauts would train in vacuum chambers, not in swimming pools," reads text overlaid on the post, which is accompanied by the caption "Outer Space is a hoax." The post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Implying that vacuum chambers aren’t used in specialized training for astronauts is both misleading and false. Astronauts train inside vacuum chambers as well as underwater in swimming pools, according to NASA. This is evidenced by a video published on the verified YouTube account for NASA’s Johnson Space Center, which serves as the operational homebase for International Space Station missions. Daniel Huot, a NASA spokesperson, told PolitiFact in a statement that spacesuit-clad astronauts train in vacuum chambers to become better acquainted with how pressure changes in outer space. "A vacuum is the absence of matter, put very simply the absence of stuff. For outer space, that means there is no atmosphere like we have here on Earth," Huot said. NASA tests materials, spacesuits and spacecraft in a vacuum environment on Earth, Huot said, "because a lot of important processes change (processes like heat transfer or how things get warmer or colder.)" In space, temperatures are around absolute zero (or about -440 degrees Fahrenheit), according to NASA. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 23, 2022 in an Instagram post “Wikileaks releases moon landing cut scenes filmed in the Nevada desert.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 25, 2022 The training that astronauts complete in a swimming pool, meanwhile, is meant to replicate a microgravity environment. NASA said microgravity is "the condition in which people or objects appear to be weightless. … microgravity refers to the condition where gravity seems to be very small." The Instagram post, Huot says, "demonstrates a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of two separate things: a vacuum and microgravity." The Oct. 25 Instagram post was shared by an account that claims the Earth is flat. NASA has emphatically reinforced indisputable evidence showing Earth is not flat. "Humans have known that the Earth is round for more than 2,000 years," a NASA spokesperson previously told PolitiFact. "The ancient Greeks measured shadows during summer solstice and also calculated Earth’s circumference. They used positions of stars and constellations to estimate distances on Earth. They could even see the planet’s round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse." Our ruling An Instagram post claimed, "If outer space was a vacuum, astronauts would train in vacuum chambers. Not in swimming pools. Outer Space is a hoax." Astronauts train in both settings. They train in vacuum chambers to understand pressure changes in outer space, and they train in swimming pools to experience a microgravity environment. Evidence shows outer space is real and Earth is spherical, not flat. We rate this claim Pants on Fir

“We finally achieved that energy independence… under the Trump administration. President Biden squandered (it) away. High gasoline prices have been top of mind for many voters across the country, with Republicans zeroing in on the issue and largely blaming Democrats and President Joe Biden. In Wisconsin's second and final U.S. Senate debate, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson proposed a solution to the prices at the pump and 40-year high inflation: "You have to grow our economy but stop the deficit spending and become energy independent," he said. "Stop the war on fossil fuel." The call for energy independence has been made by Republicans and Democrats alike. But Johnson has been vocal about that push while dismissing the Biden Administration’s investment in clean energy. That reminded us of a claim we have been meaning to get to — one from a July 14 blog post about gas prices on Johnson’s website: "We finally achieved that energy independence, just like we largely gained control of our border, under the Trump administration. President Biden squandered away both achievements." We’ll focus here on the claim about energy independence. Did the U.S. achieve energy independence under Donald Trump and lose that status under Biden? The metrics of energy independence Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated oil supply across the globe. Recently, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Russia and Saudi Arabia, slashed oil production in a move expected to send gas prices higher. To consider Johnson’s claim, let’s start by defining what energy independence means. There are actually multiple ways to view it. First, many voters may take energy independence to mean the United States does not import any oil. But that hasn’t been true for at least seven decades. It could also mean the U.S. doesn’t import any energy, which is also not the case. A more common metric for energy independence is whether a country is exporting more total energy than it imports. In Johnson’s case, the senator was referring to something more narrow — not total energy, but exports of crude oil and petroleum products exceeding imports of crude oil and petroleum products. When we asked for backup, his office pointed to U.S. Energy Information Administration data that show the U.S. did indeed become a net exporter of oil and petroleum products at the end of 2019 under then-President Donald Trump. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 But the data also shows the U.S. has maintained that net export status — the metric Johnson used to consider energy independence — during the Biden administration in 2021, though it is significantly lower than it was in 2020. (During both 2020 and 2021, the U.S. fluctuated between importing more crude oil and petroleum products and exporting more crude oil and petroleum products but ended both years with a net export.) In the first seven months of 2022, according to the most recent Energy Information Administration data, the country has continued that exporting trend. So, the U.S. has not "squandered" that position under Biden. Johnson’s office did reference an Energy Information Administration from February 2022 that noted the country would shift back to net import status by the end of the year. But the most recent data indicate that has not happened so far. Gregory Nemet, a professor at the University of Wisconsin’s La Follette School of Public Affairs who researches energy and public policy, noted the figures Johnson referenced include both crude oil and refined products such as gasoline and does not include other energy sources. Lumping those two things together to determine energy independence, he said, doesn’t make much sense because refined products are converted from crude oil. "It’s simply double counting," Nemet said. "For example, if we import oil from Canada and refine that into gasoline and sell the gasoline to Mexico, this number would say we are at net zero imports. That’s not what people care about when wanting independence." If you consider just crude oil, Nemet pointed out, the U.S. has been a net importer for decades. In 2020, for example, the country imported a net 2.67 million barrels of crude oil per day. In 2021, that number was a net 3.13 million barrels per day. Finally, if we consider the total energy metric — including sources like electricity, oil, coal and natural gas — the U.S. has been an annual net total energy exporter since 2019. Our ruling Johnson claimed "We finally achieved that energy independence … under the Trump administration. President Biden squandered (it) away." By some measures, this is wrong — the U.S. has relied on imported oil products for decades and continues to do so. By choosing a more narrow metric, Johnson cites an accurate number: Late in the Trump administration, the U.S. began exporting more crude oil and petroleum products than it imports. But Johnson is also wrong to say the situation has been reversed under Biden. Our definition of Mostly False is: "The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." That fits here. window.gciAnalyticsUAID = 'PMJS-TEALIUM-COBRAND'; window.gciAnalyticsLoadEvents = false; window.gciAnalytics.view({ 'event-type': 'pageview', 'content-type': 'interactives', 'content-ssts-section': 'news', 'content-ssts-subsection': 'news:politics', 'content-ssts-topic': 'news:politics:politifactwisconsin', 'content-ssts-subtopic': ' news:politics:politifactwisconsin' });

Document shows Rebekah Jones “demonstrated” a violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act Democratic congressional candidate Rebekah Jones recently shared a document on Instagram misrepresenting the findings of an investigation into a whistleblower complaint she filed in 2020 over COVID-19 data. Jones, who is challenging Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz for Florida’s 1st Congressional District, came to national prominence in 2020. She alleged she was fired from her role as a data scientist for the Florida Department of Health after refusing to manipulate COVID-19 data. A couple of months after her employment ended, Jones filed a complaint with the state’s Commission on Human Relations, and was later granted whistleblower status under state law. In September, the commission concluded its investigation into the matter, saying it did not find "reasonable cause" that the health department subjected Jones to unlawful whistleblower retaliation. On Oct. 26, Jones shared a photo of the commission’s report on her Instagram account that told a different story. In her version, the commission said she "demonstrated" a violation of Florida’s whistleblower law; but the state commission didn’t go that far. By Oct. 28, Jones had archived the post, which removed it from her public Instagram grid. PolitiFact compared a screenshot of Jones’ Instagram post with a report the commission provided. Jones maintains that the version of the report shared on her campaign’s Instagram account is the "original, certified copy" mailed to her by the commission in September. But it contains differences from the official version commission spokesperson Frank Penela provided to PolitiFact. Jones’ Instagram post showed only the first page of the commission’s report. Her campaign sent a copy of the full report she received to PolitiFact. The main difference between Jones’ version of the document and what the commission says is the "official" document is the word "demonstrated." In the version shared by Jones, the document states that she did disclose "and demonstrated" a violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act. (We added the bold emphasis below.) Complainant did disclose and demonstrated a) a violation of law "which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare;" or b) actual or suspected "gross mismanagement" as defined by the Act or "malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor." Jones also used the word "demonstrated" in a blog post and video on her campaign’s website about the commission’s report. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 22, 2022 in an Instagram post Ballots are “mailed unconstitutionally” to every voter in Colorado. By Madison Czopek • October 26, 2022 "This investigation looked at two points: the legitimacy of my complaint itself and whether or not I was retaliated against for filing it," Jones said in the video. "In the first, I did demonstrate that the state was putting people in danger. However, I did not incur adverse action as defined by the (Whistleblower) Act after filing the complaint with the commission." However, the word "demonstrated" does not appear in the state’s version of the document. It says (emphasis added): "Complainant did disclose either: a) a violation of law …" and continues to describe the violations defined by state law. The commission’s investigation found that Jones disclosed a violation that qualified her for whistleblower protection, not that she demonstrated a violation of the state’s whistleblower law. Additionally, in Jones’ version of the report, the second page lists a specific Florida statute about the suspension of state employees; the state’s version does not include this. There are also minor formatting differences between the documents. In the state’s version, the phrase "Florida Statutes" is italicized every time. But in three instances, in Jones’ version of the report, "Florida Statutes" is not italicized. Jones’ version also shows opening quotation marks in two instances where closing quotation marks are used in the state’s version. When asked for comment on the discrepancies between the two versions, Jones said the state has made false claims against her in the past, so "we’re not surprised the state would lie again." Metadata for the state’s version of the document shows the report was created at 11:03 a.m. on Sept. 12, the same day the report was released and mailed to Jones. Our ruling Jones shared a photo of the report the Commission on Human Relations released about Jones’ whistleblower complaint. The version of the report in the photo included multiple discrepancies from the official version released by the commission. Jones’ version claims the commission found she had "demonstrated" a violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act. The word "demonstrated" does not appear in the official version of the report. It states Jones disclosed a violation of the state law that qualified her for whistleblower protections. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Gaetz draws misleading comparison on Jones 'campaign even

“If you use the US Postal Service certified mail or registered mail, they can do anything they want with those ballots." They “can burn your mail and they won't get in any trouble. Misleading claims about the safety of mail-in voting aren’t new, but a recent Instagram video has added a new twist, claiming that people must choose the right postal service to ensure their ballots are counted. The Oct. 27 video features a man sitting in his car saying that the U.S. Post Office is a "de jure postal service," while the U.S. Postal Service is a "de facto" federal corporation. The man claims the Postal Service doesn’t "work for the people," and it can do whatever it wants to mail-in ballots. "If you use the United States Postal Service certified mail or registered mail, they can do anything they want with those (mail-in) ballots," he said. "They can take a box of those ballots, a crate of those ballots … leave them there, they could set them on fire, they can throw them in the dumpster." The man said the only way for a mail-in ballot to be safely counted is if it’s sent by registered mail. "Registered mail is a bond, no one can scam that. If they do, they’re looking at serious jail time," he said. "If you go to the United States Postal Service, they can get away with (scamming). They can burn your mail and they won’t get into any trouble." The U.S. Postal Service is not a federal corporation, and there’s no difference between it and the post office — they are the same entity. Studies and experts have repeatedly found that voting by mail is a safe and secure way to cast a ballot. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Postal Service spokeswoman Martha Johnson said there is "absolutely no truth to the claims" in the Instagram video. The U.S. Postal Service was established by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which transformed the U.S. Post Office Department into an "independent establishment of the executive branch" and is the only postal service in the country that handles mail. Although the service has some trappings of a corporation, such as a similar leadership structure and not relying on taxpayer funding, it is still considered a government agency. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 18, 2022 in a post Connecticut ballot initiative on early voting would "remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots." By Andy Nguyen • October 27, 2022 The term post office is typically made about facilities used by the Postal Service where people can buy stamps or drop off packages or letters, but it’s often colloquially used for the Postal Service itself. Gerry Langeler, a spokesman for the National Vote at Home Institute, said the Instagram video’s claim that postal workers can do whatever they want to ballots is "poppycock." Federal law prohibits Postal Service employees from destroying or tampering with mail, including election mail. If caught destroying or diverting election mail, employees face state and federal penalties, Langeler said. There have been a few incidents of Postal Service employees dumping or holding onto ballots. Authorities recovered the ballots and re-sent them through the mail. Those incidents are few and far between, as most ballots sent through the mail get to election officials on time. Mail-in ballots are treated as first-class mail by default, which means they will arrive within two to five business days after being sent. It is Postal Service policy to prioritize election mail, and ballots are still delivered to election offices even if they do not have enough postage. A Postal Service analysis during the 2021 elections found that 99.3% of ballots reached officials within three days of being sent by voters, 99.8% within five days and 99.9% within seven days. Voters can check the status of their ballots online through their local or state election office if tracking is available. Many local election offices allow voters to sign up for free to receive a text or email alerting them when their mail ballots have been received, such as through BallotTrax. "If it suddenly doesn’t seem to be making progress, you can alert your elections office, have that ballot voided, and have a new one issued, with a new unique bar code on the return envelope," Langeler said. Our ruling An Instagram video claims voters should not mail in their ballots through the U.S. Postal Service because employees could destroy them and encourages people to send them through the U.S. Post Office instead. The U.S. Postal Service is the nation’s only postal service, and the post office is a colloquial term used for the agency. Postal Service employees are prohibited by federal law from destroying or tampering with election mail, including ballots. We rate this claim Pants on Fir

A photo shows David DePape filming the Jan. 6 Capitol attack A recent Instagram post juxtaposes two photos that have appeared in recent news coverage of the Oct. 28 attack on Paul Pelosi at the San Francisco home he shares with his wife, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. David DePape has been charged with assaulting Paul Pelosi and with attempting to kidnap Nancy Pelosi. Two photos of him appear in the Instagram post. The left image shows "Paul’s friend," the post said. "Right is cameraman from J6," referring to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We found both photos using a reverse image search. They’re both archived on The Associated Press’ website. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 In the photo on the left, DePape — who Paul Pelosi has said was a stranger, not a friend, according to authorities — is shown in Berkeley, California, on Dec. 13, 2013. RELATED VIDEO In the photo on the right, DePape is holding a video camera, but he’s not filming the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He wasn’t even in Washington, D.C., when the photo was taken. Rather, he’s filming "the nude wedding of Gypsy Taub outside City Hall" in San Francisco on Dec. 19, 2013. DePape was known in Berkeley "as a pro-nudity activist who had picketed naked at protests against local ordinances requiring people to be clothed in public," the AP said. We rate claims this photo shows him filming the Capitol attack False.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere! Forced sterilization is the stuff human rights organizations rail against. The International Justice Resource Center, for example, calls it "a human rights violation and can constitute an act of genocide, gender-based violence, discrimination, and torture." But an Instagram post suggests that one California lawmaker is advocating sterilization of children everywhere. The Oct. 23 post showed a Halloween event in which three adults in costumes stand next to a man in everyday attire who offers handfuls of candy to children. "That is senator Scott Weiner handing candy to that little girl," the Instagram post said. "She looks very uncomfortable doesn’t she? Weiner is the man who authored SB 107 which makes California a sanctuary state for trans kids from all over the country. He doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!" To add to the sense of doom, the theme song from the 1978 horror classic "Halloween" plays in the background. The post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Wiener, a Democrat and an attorney whose district includes San Francisco, has been a member of the California Assembly since 2016. He sponsored California Senate Bill 107. It does not call for youth sterilization, as this post suggests. The legislation is meant to protect transgender youth and their families who seek refuge in California after fleeing states that have banned gender-affirming health care for youths. The measure also clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over any custody cases that may arise from parents taking their children to the state for care. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill, also known as the gender-affirming health care bill, Sept. 29; it will become law in 2023. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 29, 2022 in an Instagram post The Pelosis “are refusing to turn over surveillance video of their home.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 31, 2022 As defined by the World Health Organization, gender-affirming (also referred to as gender-affirmative) health care broadly refers to any "social, psychological, behavioral or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity." In a statement to PolitiFact via a spokesperson, Weiner called the claim "vile" and "untrue." "Opponents to the law are willfully mischaracterizing it, including claiming lawmakers support the ‘sterilization’ of children," he said. "The only thing that SB 107 does is ensure that parents and doctors won’t go to jail for allowing trans kids to be who they are by allowing life-saving healthcare." Earlier this year, a host of states introduced varied proposals that would make it a crime for legal guardians to help their children gain access to gender-affirming care. Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, wrote a letter to state health agencies saying that offering gender-affirming care "constitutes child abuse" and requiring doctors, nurses and teachers report such cases to Texas’ Department of Family and Protective Services. A judge partially blocked the directive’s enforcement, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said denying said care to trans youth breached federal law. Our ruling An Instagram video claimed that Wiener, a California state lawmaker, "doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!" The post refers to Senate Bill 107, which Wiener sponsored and establishes California as a haven for families of trans youth seeking gender-affirming health care by choice. It does not call for forced sterilization, which is widely considered a human rights violation. We rate this claim False. RELATED: New California law on transgender youths doesn’t remove a parent’s custody

Video shows “military robots ready for war. A video that appears to show a robot shooting targets with precision even as humans prod and push it over has some people online claiming the footage shows a new kind of soldier. "They got military robots ready for war," a recent Instagram post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The video originated on the YouTube channel Corridor Crew, which creates and shares videos such as an edited "Star Wars" clip to improve the aim of the franchise’s Stormtroopers. The Instagram post shows just a few moments of the approximately four-minute long video titled "New robot makes soldiers obsolete." But watching the full video clarifies that this isn’t real. At one point, subtitles supposedly translating for the robot read, "oh no not bees I hate bees," as a box full of bees is unleashed on the machine. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 The October 2019 YouTube post also has a disclaimer: "This video is a comedic parody and is not owned, endorsed, created by or associated with the Boston Dynamics company." The words "Bosstown Dynamics" appear in the corner of the video, a spoof of the company Boston Dynamics, which has created well-known robots such as a quadrupedal known as Spot. Boston Dynamics recently pledged not to weaponize its robots, Axios first reported. A day after posting its video about a new robot making soldiers obsolete, Corridor Crew posted another showing how it "used CGI to fake military robots." The behind-the-scenes footageshows a person in the position where the "robot" ultimately appeared in the video. (CGI stands for "computer generated imagery.") We rate claims that the footage in the post shows a real military robot Fals

“All Democrats in the Senate and House voted to cut $280 billion out of Medicare just two months ago. In an interview on CNN’s "State of the Union," Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., repeated a talking point previously used by the National Republican Senatorial Committee — which Scott chairs — in campaign ads. On the show’s Oct. 30 edition, host Dana Bash noted a recent Democratic attack line against GOP candidates, asking Scott, "So, just a simple yes or no, do Republicans want to cut Medicare and/or Social Security?" Scott replied, "Absolutely not. And the Democrats just cut $280 billion, all Democrats in the Senate and House voted to cut $280 billion out of Medicare just two months ago. And then they want to say Republicans want to cut something?" After some cross-talk, Bash said, "Just want to correct the record. The Democrats' plan, which is now law, didn't cut … Medicare benefits. It allowed for negotiation for prescription drug prices, which would ultimately bring down the price and the costs for Medicare consumers." When the National Republican Senatorial Committee previously made this argument in an ad on behalf of Herschel Walker, Georgia’s U.S. Senate candidate, we rated it False. (Other outlets, including The Washington Post Fact Checker, CNN, and FactCheck.org have reached similar conclusions on equivalent statements.) The ad cited Senate roll call vote 325 to back up its assertion. This was the final vote to approve the Inflation Reduction Act, a Biden-backed bill that included provisions addressing climate change, the taxation of very large corporations, and Medicare drug pricing, among other topics. It passed both chambers with only Democratic votes, and it received Biden’s signature. The $280 billion — technically, somewhere between $237 billion and $288 billion, depending on how the numbers are estimated — stems from a provision in the Democratic bill that would end the longstanding bar that kept Medicare from negotiating with drugmakers over the price of certain medicines. Not being able to negotiate prices has meant that Medicare — the pharmaceutical market’s biggest single buyer — could not leverage its weight to secure lower prices for taxpayers. This has been part of the reason U.S. pharmaceutical prices have been higher than those in any other major country. Although the bill is projected to reduce federal spending by about $280 billion, that would reflect government savings and not benefit cuts. In other words, Medicare recipients would receive the same amount of medicines, just for less taxpayer money. "In reality, the bill's prescription drug savings would save the federal government nearly $300 billion through 2031 without cutting benefits," wrote the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that favors deficit reduction and has been skeptical of many of Biden’s legislative efforts, citing their cost. "Lowering Medicare costs is not the same as reducing benefits," the committee wrote. "Quite the opposite — many measures to reduce costs for the government would reduce costs for individuals as well." Featured Fact-check Maggie Hassan stated on October 19, 2022 in an ad "Don Bolduc wants to cut trillions from Medicare and end Social Security." By Tom Kertscher • November 1, 2022 After combining the drug-cost savings with the bill’s other health care provisions, Medicare beneficiaries would see decreases in premiums and savings, including through a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs, the committee projected. Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, another group seeking to keep deficits low, told PolitiFact in August that the claims of Medicare cuts from this provision are problematic. "Those are savings resulting mostly from the government negotiating prescription drug prices and limiting drug price increases to inflation," Ellis said. "So rather than taking money out of Medicare, it is reducing Medicare costs." Scott’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article. (The National Republican Senatorial Committee also didn’t respond to our previous article on the Georgia ad.) Scott noted in his exchange with Bash that the change "means we're going to have fewer lifesaving drugs." Pharmaceutical companies have long argued that cutting prices for prescription drugs will drain the industry of money it uses for researching and testing new drugs. The scale of the impact is uncertain, though the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching agency, estimated a relatively small impact, with one fewer drug in the first decade, four in the next decade and five in the decade after that. But even if the impact on future drugs is significantly greater than that, as the industry argues, it wouldn’t support what Scott said. At most, the Democratic bill would have saved the government $280 billion while having some longer-term, negative, secondary impacts. It would not simply be a cut to Medicare’s budget. Our ruling Scott said, "All Democrats in the Senate and House voted to cut $280 billion out of Medicare just two months ago." This claim is wrong. The federal government would see its outlays reduced between $237 billion and $288 billion as a result of a Medicare drug-price negotiation provision. However, that reduction wouldn’t represent cuts to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, by leveraging Medicare’s market power, the government would be able to pay less to provide the same medicines. We rate the statement Fals

Cheri Beasley “backs tax hikes — even on families making under $75,000. A new ad accuses Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cheri Beasley of wanting to bail out the rich and tax lower- to middle-income families. Beasley, a former North Carolina Supreme Court chief justice, faces Republican U.S. Rep. Ted Budd in North Carolina’s race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Richard Burr. The contest is expected to be among the nation’s closest Senate races. In the television ad commissioned by the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican-backed political action committee, a narrator says: "It's a question of fairness. Should a waitress be forced to help pay for a doctor’s student loans? Cheri Beasley thinks so. She backs student loan bailouts for the rich — even couples earning a quarter million dollars a year. Who pays? The rest of us. Beasley backs tax hikes — even on families making under $75,000. Cheri Beasley bails out the wealthy and taxes the rest of us." The ad appears to reference President Joe Biden’s student loan debt forgiveness plan, albeit through some misleading statements. Under Biden’s plan, which is being challenged in court, some borrowers who earn well above the median household income in America could qualify for Biden’s student loan debt relief. But, as PolitiFact previously reported, the vast majority of the relief is concentrated on borrowers with lower incomes. But did Beasley really express support for raising taxes on families making less than $75,000 a year? No. The narrator’s transition from student loan bailouts to tax hikes might make it seem like Biden’s debt relief plan is funded by tax increases. That’s not the case. Small on-screen citations signal the advertiser has shifted topics from Biden’s student bailout plan to Beasley’s support for the Inflation Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act, though, does not change federal income tax rates for people earning less than $75,000 a year. The legislation may indirectly affect lower-income taxpayers to the tune of less than 1% of their after-tax income — but not through direct taxes. And expert predictions vary on when or how that would happen. Beasley opposes raising taxes on anyone earning $75,000 or less per year, her campaign said when asked about the ad. Her campaign said the claim had already been debunked, pointing to news articles and fact checks showing that claims about tax hikes in the Inflation Reduction Act have been exaggerated. The campaign highlighted an Associated Press analysis that said: "Nothing in the bill raises taxes on people earning less than $400,000. … There are no individual tax rate increases for anyone in the bill." Backing ‘tax hikes’ Beasley has expressed support for the Inflation Reduction Act, tweeting on Aug. 7 that it would help lower costs and that votes against the legislation were "inexcusable." To back up the claim about tax hikes in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Senate Leadership Fund pointed to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Republican lawmakers have also cited the analysis when making similar statements about the bill. However, the committee’s analysis offers an incomplete picture of the bill’s effects. The bill, which Biden signed into law in August, only directly levies tax increases on very large corporations and high-earning money managers. Any impact on middle-income taxpayers would be indirect and hard to calculate. Corporations tend to pass along the cost of tax increases through lower returns for investors or lower wages for workers. Featured Fact-check Marco Rubio stated on October 18, 2022 in a campaign ad Val Demings "voted with Pelosi to raise taxes over $4,000 on Florida families." By Yacob Reyes • October 25, 2022 The bill could cost taxpayers about 1% of their annual income, the committee’s analysis found. Households making $75,000 or less would lose 0.5% of their gross income as a result of increased corporate taxes passed on to consumers, or about $350 for someone earning $75,000, the committee found. However, as PolitiFact has previously reported, the committee’s analysis didn’t examine how the bill would help taxpayers in other ways. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit organization that favors deficit reduction and has been skeptical of some of Biden’s spending plans, reported that healthcare subsidies offered for Affordable Care Act plans "alone would be more than enough to counter net tax increases below $400,000 in the (Joint Committee on Taxation) study." The group estimated that, by 2027, the Inflation Reduction Act would provide a net tax cut once fully phased-in. Several groups weighed-in on the bill’s indirect effect on taxpayers, at varying depths and with varying results. The Tax Foundation also believes the ACA subsidies will offset small tax burden increases for low-income households in the short term. However, when the ACA subsidies expire mid-decade, after-tax incomes would go back down. "After-tax incomes are up by 0.3% on average in 2023 and 0.2% in 2032, and in the long-run they fall by 0.2% after taking into account the economic impacts," said Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst and modeling manager at the foundation. The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model predicted a 0.1% drop in after-tax income for low-income earners. Experts at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center identified the ACA subsidies as an "important factor" when considering the bill’s overall effect on taxpayers. Five former Treasury secretaries signed a statement supporting the bill and rejecting the argument that its provisions represent a tax increase, writing: "Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000 a year." Our ruling The ad says Cheri Beasley "backs tax hikes — even for families making under $75,000" and referenced the Inflation Reduction Act. Beasley does support the Inflation Reduction Act but the claim is wrong to suggest it includes a change in tax rates for that income bracket. Expert analyses show that any effect on those earners would be on the scale of $350 and, by one estimate, delayed for several years. The claim has a kernel of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly Fals

"Kim Reynolds doesn’t think nurses are educated. During a back-and-forth at the only Iowa gubernatorial debate on Oct. 17 Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds was criticizing President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. The plan, Reynolds said, would transfer college debt from people with high-paying jobs and a degree to those who choose not to go to college: "And if you’re the truck driver or a machinist or a nurse, or a person that decided not to seek a college education, why should you be responsible in paying somebody else’s off?" Deidre DeJear, Reynolds’ Democratic challenger from Des Moines, used Reynolds’ comment in a social media video, showing Reynolds saying in the Iowa PBS debate: "And if you’re the truck driver, or machinist, or a nurse or a person that decided not to seek a college education." The video, on Twitter and other social media, then states: "Kim Reynolds doesn’t think nurses are educated. She’s wrong." But Reynolds did not explicitly say nurses are not educated so we took a closer look at what the governor said. In the debate. In the debate, Reynolds begins with a list of professions that are unrelated, then adds: "or a person that decided not to seek a college education." Here is more from her statement: "And if you’re the truck driver or a machinist or a nurse, or a person that decided not to seek a college education, why should you be responsible in paying somebody else’s off? Especially when they often make more than you do? It’s not right. It’s not fair. People are upset about it and there were Democrats as well as Republicans that disagreed with the program that he’s put in place." Pat Garrett, Reynolds’ campaign communications director, said Reynolds did not mean that nurses aren’t educated. "She is saying they shouldn’t be responsible for paying off the debt of others," Garrett wrote in an email to PolitiFact Iowa. Featured Fact-check Joe Biden stated on October 23, 2022 in a forum with Now This Student loan forgiveness is “passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect.” By Louis Jacobson • October 25, 2022 Lavanna Martinez, DeJear’s campaign manager, wrote in an email to PolitiFact Iowa: "It is social media content where viewers can see and hear Reynold’s comment at the debate for themselves." The federal loan plan would forgive $20,000 of student loan debt for students who received a Pell Grant and $10,000 for those ineligible for a Pell Grant. The plan is on hold after the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted temporary injunctionary relief to six Republican-led states, including Iowa, that sued to keep the plan from being implemented. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan government agency that analyzes the fiscal effects of government policy, released a report in September that showed Biden’s plan would cost $400 billion if it makes its way through the courts. The broader context of Reynolds’ debate comments shows that Iowa’s Board of Nursing, which licenses and supervises registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and advanced registered nurse practitioners, requires all practicing nurses to have a degree from an approved nursing program in community colleges and universities to obtain a license. Certified nursing assistants are required to complete a 75-hour course at a community college or approved healthcare facility. They are registered through the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. Our ruling Deidre DeJear posted on social media during her gubernatorial campaign in Iowa a video that says Gov. Kim Reynolds doesn’t think nurses are educated. Reynolds’ campaign said Reynolds did not mean that nurses are uneducated when listing in a gubernatorial debate workers, starting with those who do not need college degrees for their jobs, who shouldn’t have to pay someone’s college debt. Using part of a comment to accuse Reynolds of thinking nurses are uneducated is an exaggeration. No evidence exists that proves she thinks this, plus state regulations require post K-12 training and certification for nurses. We rate this statement Fals

"Deidre DeJear refused to stand for police. Iowa’s Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds released a campaign commercial Oct. 6 criticizing her Democratic opponent Deidre DeJear for not standing to applaud law enforcement at Reynolds’ Condition of the State address to the Legislature in January. The commercial says: "Liberal Deidre DeJear refused to stand for police. Can you imagine what she would do as governor?" The ad showed footage from the address when lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, stood and applauded after Reynolds voiced support for law enforcement. DeJear is shown in a still photo sitting during the ovation. The photo was taken by Iowa Field Report, a politically conservative online publication. "While we can’t fix attitudes in other states," Reynolds said in her address, "we can certainly let our officers and officers across the country know that, in Iowa, they’re welcome and will receive the respect and support they deserve." A key phrase in Reynolds’ ad is "to stand," which has multiple definitions. One Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of stand is: "to support oneself on the feet in an erect position." Another is: "to take up or maintain a specified position or posture." DeJear’s campaign is implying the first definition; Reynolds’ campaign is implying the latter. Reynolds’ campaign communications director, Pat Garrett, provided sourcing to PolitFact Iowa including the photo taken of DeJear sitting. He also pointed out accurately that Democratic legislator Chris Hall, who is critical of Reynolds, was among those standing during the applause. And DeJear admitted in a January Axios interview that she sat during the standing ovation. But why? DeJear’s campaign wrote in an email to PolitiFact Iowa that DeJear sat to protest Reynolds for not offering law enforcement officers more in terms of support than just a $1,000 bonus from American Rescue Plan Act. "Deidre knows that our officers deserve more than a $1,000 bonus and hollow displays of gratitude. Democrats and Republicans alike often talk about supporting our law enforcement and it needs to be met with real actions," Shekinah Young, DeJear’s communications director, wrote. Featured Fact-check Tim Michels stated on October 24, 2022 in News conference Tony Evers “wants to let out between 9,000 and 10,000 more” Wisconsin prisoners By Madeline Heim • November 4, 2022 DeJear openly has said she doesn’t support defunding police and would support increasing reimbursement for mental health professionals in Iowa and fully funding public education if elected governor. Young pointed to DeJear’s work with police during her time as the financial director at the Financial Capability Network that partnered with the Evelyn K. Davis center, a community program that works to help working families gain financial stability. DeJear worked with police departments and law enforcement agencies around the state on reducing recidivism, which aids her understanding of the issues affecting Iowa law enforcement, Young wrote. An example of the solutions DeJear supports to help police includes making mental health care accessible to Iowans so that police with little or no training in dealing with mental health crises have to respond to these crises fewer times, Young wrote. The movement to "Defund the Police" gained traction after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd during a 2022 arrest. A Hennepin County jury convicted Chauvin of murdering Floyd. Our ruling A Kim Reynolds campaign commercial accuses gubernatorial opponent Deidre DeJear of failing to stand for police while showing DeJear sitting during a standing ovation for Reynolds’ January Condition of the State comments on supporting law enforcement. That DeJear didn’t stand during the speech is indisputable; a photo exists and she admitted it. But saying that instance means DeJear would not support police as the governor takes DeJear’s actions at the Condition of the State address out of context. DeJear consistently has said her refusal to stand during the speech was about Reynolds and not police. On her actual policy positions, DeJear has said consistently that she supports programs that can help police. We rate the statement Half Tru

Says Gov. Tony Evers would, “allow the government to use red flag laws to confiscate your firearms without due process. In the race for governor, a radio ad from the National Rifle Association offers a laundry list of complaints against Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' stance on guns, citing self-defense issues, "California-style" firearm bans and magazine bans. But we wanted to focus on one claim in particular: That Evers "would even allow the government to use red-flag laws to confiscate your firearms without due process." Red flag laws, sometimes referred to as extreme risk protection orders, are in place in 19 states and Washington, D.C. These laws allow the government to temporarily take away guns of people who show evidence of having the potential to harm themselves or others. But does Evers support such a law? And would it, as the NRA claims, allow guns to be "confiscated" without due process? Let’s take a look. More about red flag laws In July, President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which includes monetary incentives for states to pass red flag laws. Such laws provide a mechanism to take guns from people exhibiting dangerous behavior before they harm themselves or others, as we noted in a 2019 item. The first such law was passed in Connecticut in 1990, but the second didn’t appear until Indiana’s in 2005. Many states enacted such laws after mass shootings at schools across the country. For example, in 2018, 14 states enacted them after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17. Although the process varies from state to state, the laws typically allow someone (usually a law enforcement officer or close family member) to petition a judge to temporarily take away someone’s firearms because of a potential threat they may present to themselves or others. But some states allow for doctors, co-workers or school officials to petition as well. Evers clearly supports such laws. In 2019, he called a special session of the Legislature to try to force Republicans to take up such a measure for Wisconsin. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in and out of the session without any action. For his part, GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels has been against such laws. "People are entitled to due process," Michels said in a July 18 interview on the Vicki McKenna show. "You just can’t have someone make a complaint against you and your … Second Amendment right be taken away." Featured Fact-check Tim Michels stated on October 24, 2022 in News conference Tony Evers “wants to let out between 9,000 and 10,000 more” Wisconsin prisoners By Madeline Heim • November 4, 2022 Digging into the NRA claim When asked for backup for the claim, an NRA spokesperson said that red flag laws are issued ex-parte, meaning that a gun owner would have little to no notice if their gun was potentially being taken away. Hence, the part of the claim that a gun would be taken "without due process." This reminded us of a similar claim Assembly Speaker Robin Vos made in 2019 in response to Evers’ move to force a vote on introducing red flag laws in Wisconsin. We rated Mostly False a Vos claim that "red flag laws" allow gun seizure without a judge’s involvement: "They take it away first. Then you have to get permission from a judge to do it." In that item, we noted: These (red flag) orders are temporary and last from two to 21 days depending on the state, according to an issue brief put together by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council. Gun owners then have a chance to make their cases at a hearing before a judge decides on a final order. That order commonly lasts for a year. So, the NRA’s description of this as "confiscation" is over the top, in that the statement can be understood as one never gets guns back. What’s more, it ignores just what Evers was advocating. Back to our 2019 item: Evers’ proposed red flag law for Wisconsin requires a hearing within 14 days of the preliminary order, and makes a final order valid for a year. It says guns should be seized if the judge finds "reasonable grounds that the respondent is substantially likely" to harm themselves or others. Requests can be made to extend the final order or end it early. State law already requires guns be surrendered as a result of other judicial findings, such as mental health commitments and restraining orders, according to the Legislative Council. Finally: The Wisconsin proposal — contrary to Vos’ description — doesn’t allow any guns to be seized without a judicial order. So, under the proposal Evers backed, a judge was involved from the beginning. And, as the item noted, such laws in other states have been upheld as constitutional on both Second Amendment and due process grounds. That includes a ruling upholding the Florida law in September 2019. The NRA has a point in that the gun owner is not involved from the beginning, but the way it states the claim goes too far — especially given the fact other such laws have been upheld. Our ruling The NRA claimed that Evers would, "use red-flag laws to confiscate Wisconsinite firearms without due process." Like Vos on an earlier claim, the NRA vastly overstates the way red-flag laws work, suggesting there is no judicial process at all. In truth, the proposal backed by Evers had a judge involved from the start, unlike in some other states. The NRA also used over-the-top language in describing a temporary seizure through a clear judicial process as "confiscation." The NRA has a point that the gun owner is not necessarily involved in the initial hearing, but that alone — as other courts have held — does not mean it violates due process. Our definition for Mostly False is "the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." That’s what we rate this item.

Rep. Tim Ryan “wanted to decriminalize fentanyl. J.D. Vance and U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan have accused each other of failing to address Ohio’s opioid crisis throughout their U.S. Senate campaign in that state. In a TV ad, Ryan portrayed Vance’s now-shuttered nonprofit as doing little to fight opioid addiction. Vance counterpunched by suggesting Ryan’s aggression on fentanyl is new. "Ryan wanted to decriminalize fentanyl," Vance tweeted "Now he wants it declared a weapon of mass destruction. The only difference is that three years ago he was trying to scam a different group of voters than he is today." There is no evidence Ryan wants to decriminalize fentanyl. When we asked the Vance campaign for evidence, it cited a pledge Ryan made when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019. But nowhere in the pledge does Ryan say he wants to decriminalize fentanyl. We tracked down that pledge and found that in response to a question about drug decriminalization Ryan said that he said the opposite. "No, I do not support the decriminalization at the federal level of all drug possession for personal use," he wrote. He also wrote that he does agree with decriminalizing possession of marijuana. Ryan’s record in Congress shows he has supported efforts to curb fentanyl. ACLU asked Democrats to pledge to reduce mass incarceration in 2019 Vance’s tweet is based on information in a Fox News story about a pledge the American Civil Liberties Union sought from presidential candidates in 2019. The story is headlined, "Vance calls Ryan's pledge to decriminalize 'all drug possession' a 'slap in the face' of victims' families." The ACLU pledge was focused on reducing the prison population. It asked whether candidates would work to reduce mass incarceration by 50%. Fox News linked to an ACLU article which listed a few strategies to reduce mass incarceration, including "ending the War on Drugs by decriminalizing all drug possession." It singled out higher-profile Democratic presidential candidates as having signed this pledge, but did not mention Ryan. We asked the ACLU to send us Ryan’s response to its questionnaire. It showed that candidates were asked whether they would commit to cutting the federal prison population by half during their presidency and if they would publish a strategy for making it happen, including at the state and local levels. Ryan said yes to both questions. Another question directly addressed the topic of drugs. The ACLU prefaced the question with a discussion of racial disparities in drug arrests and incarceration rates between the Black and white populations. It went on to say "the opioid crisis has reaffirmed the failure of criminalization," and "full decriminalization with appropriate treatment responses could address this stark racial injustice and reduce incarceration." The ACLU’s question asked, "Since drug use is better addressed as a public health issue (through treatment and other programming), will you support the decriminalization at the federal level of all drug possession for personal use?" Ryan said no. He wrote: "No, I do not support the decriminalization at the federal level of all drug possession for personal use. However, I do support the decriminalization and legalization of Marijuana." In a September 2019 interview, an ACLU official thanked Ryan for agreeing to the mass incarceration pledge and asked Ryan how he would work toward those goals. "Yeah, there is a lot we would have to do, and it ties into a lot of other areas," Ryan said "I would personally try to start with marijuana laws and getting marijuana off the schedule." (Under federal law, marijuana has the highest classification under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule 1, which includes the most dangerous substances, such as heroin.) Ryan said Black Americans face harsher sentences than white people for marijuana crimes. He did not mention fentanyl. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 When we told the Vance campaign about Ryan’s response in the questionnaire, the campaign said Ryan’s pledge to free half of the U.S. prison population would include offenders in prison for fentanyl trafficking. One 14-second clip shared on Twitter by RNC Research forwarded to us by the Vance campaign shows Ryan being asked about the pledge. Ryan said, "I don’t know if it’s by 50% or not, but we want to get all the nonviolent criminals out." Ryan’s campaign pointed to multiple bills he co-sponsored that address fentanyl trafficking and addiction: Stop Trafficking in Fentanyl Act of 2015, which would lower the drug quantity thresholds that trigger a mandatory minimum prison term for a defendant who manufactures fentanyl, distributes it or possesses it with intent to distribute. STOP OD Act of 2017, which includes grants to prevent abuse of opioids. Interdict Act, which requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to increase the number of chemical screening devices to find fentanyl. President Donald Trump signed this into law in 2018. Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0 of 2018, which reauthorizes programs for drug prevention and treatment and imposes limits on opioid prescriptions. In June, Ryan introduced a resolution urging President Joe Biden and the Department of Homeland Security to designate illicit fentanyl and analogues as a weapon of mass destruction. Drug abuse is a huge issue in Ohio. In 2007, unintentional drug poisoning became the leading cause of injury death in Ohio, surpassing motor vehicle crashes for the first time on record, according to the state health department. This trend continued through 2020. Fentanyl was involved in 81% of overdose deaths in 2020 in Ohio, often in combination with other drugs. Our ruling Vance said Ryan "wanted to decriminalize fentanyl." Vance is referring to a pledge to reduce mass incarceration that Ryan signed during his 2019 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Ryan doesn’t say anything about legalizing fentanyl. Ryan actually says the opposite. In response to a question about his willingness to decriminalize all drug possession, Ryan wrote, "No, I do not support the decriminalization at the federal level of all drug possession for personal use." Ryan mentioned only marijuana as the drug he would decriminalize. Ryan has supported legislation that aims to reduce the flow of fentanyl, both before and after his presidential bid. We rate Vance’s statement Pants on Fire! PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check. RELATED: GOP Senate hopeful JD Vance paid political adviser to run nonprofit that did little to fight opioids RELATED: Fact-checking J.D. Vance and Tim Ryan in Ohio Senate debate RELATED: Tim Ryan on the Truth-O-Meter RELATED: J.D. Vance on the Truth-O-Met

Pennsylvania drop boxes were “pre-loaded” with ballots When election officials in Centre County, Pennsylvania, first opened ballot drop boxes to prepare them to collect ballots for the 2022 midterm election, they discovered a small collection of ballots already inside three of the boxes. The Gateway Pundit, a conservative website known to spread misinformation, reported on those ballots as if they were indicative of fraud or election tampering, fueling a social media narrative. "BREAKING: Ballots discovered ‘pre-loaded’ inside drop box in Pennsylvania … Two other reportedly also had ‘pre-loaded’ ballots inside the boxes," read The Gateway Pundit headline. An Instagram user echoed the claim. "Nothing says free and fair elections like preloaded (drop boxes)," said the caption on the Oct. 27 post that shared a screenshot of The Gateway Pundit’s headline. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Although the ballots found in the drop boxes were unexpected and out of the ordinary, they are not evidence of fraud. The voters who put their ballots in too early simply didn’t follow directions, a county elections official said. On Oct. 25, election officials in Centre County opened the ballot drop boxes in preparation for the 2022 midterm election, said Centre County Elections Director Beth Lechman. A video shared by The Gateway Pundit shows election officials unlocking a drop box. Lechman explained that the county elections office gave keys to two officials so they could open the drop boxes and prepare them for use in the 2022 midterm election. A sheriff’s deputy accompanied the officials, she said. "They were opening the drop boxes to put the sacks in and to remove the defeater bar that keeps voters from placing ballots into the boxes," Lechman said. "When they opened it, they found 10 legitimate ballots." Lechman emphasized that the ballots were not fraudulent. "These are voters that have requested ballots," she said. "I have their applications." How did ballots get into the box early, before the official window of time when the drop boxes are allowed to be used? Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 18, 2022 in a post Connecticut ballot initiative on early voting would "remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots." By Andy Nguyen • October 27, 2022 After initially finding 10 ballots — and encountering a similar situation at two other ballot drop boxes — Lechman said officials discovered a defect in the ballot boxes that allowed voters to insert their ballots when the deposit slots on the drop boxes were closed and locked. The issue is being corrected, she said. "Excitement, interest, and participation in the 2022 General Election is through the roof," Centre County Commissioner Michael Pipe said. "However, we had a handful of voters who were a bit too eager and prematurely deposited their voted mail-in or absentee ballot into our drop boxes. We will identify ways to avoid this for future elections." Lechman also said the ballots were secure. Voters could put ballots into the box, but couldn’t get them out. Because the drop boxes were not officially open when these ballots were dropped off, Lechman said the county is still working on a plan for how it will determine whether the ballots can be counted. Lechman said ballot drop boxes open a few weeks ahead of Election Day on a date determined based on the county’s election plan. Staff availability also plays a role, since the county empties its eight drop boxes once a day until the drop boxes close at 9 a.m. on Nov. 7. This year, the drop boxes opened Oct. 25 for the midterm election — a week later than in past elections, Lechman said. She said election officials believe the delay could have led to the confusion and the too-early ballots. Centre County’s ballot drop boxes are under 24-hour surveillance. "Centre County takes elections very seriously and is trying to create a secure and transparent environment for voters to cast their ballots," Lechman said. Our ruling An Instagram user shared a headline from The Gateway Pundit that claimed ballots were "discovered ‘pre-loaded’" inside drop boxes in Pennsylvania. A small number of eligible voters successfully inserted their ballots into a few of Centre County’s ballot drop boxes before the window of time when the boxes were officially opened. That was possible because of a defect that is now being corrected. Although the ballots found in the drop boxes were unexpected, they are not evidence of fraud. We rate this claim Half True. RELATED: Marco Rubio said someone could blow up a ballot drop box, ignoring safe track record RELATED: The faulty premise of the ‘2,000 mules’ trailer about voting by mail in the 2020 electi

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs “sent 6,000 wrong ballots to Republicans. As the midterm election quickly approaches, many social media users are pointing to election mistakes as misguided examples of fraud. A caption on an Oct. 23 Instagram post declared that Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who is also the Democratic candidate for governor, "sent 6,000 wrong ballots to Republicans." "Vote for Kari Lake, Blake Masters if you want to have vote integrity," the caption also said. The post also included a screenshot of an article about Hobbs from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative news outlet. Hobbs will face Lake, a Trump-endorsed candidate and former Phoenix television news anchor, in the Nov. 8 election. The Trump-endorsed Masters is Arizona’s Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Mark Kelly. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The post misconstrues key facts: some voters in Arizona did receive federal-only ballots that included no state and local candidates, but it was far less than 6,000. Hobbs’ office didn’t send the ballots, county officials did; and GOP voters represented just 20% of voters who received the federal-only ballots. An Arizona secretary of state’s office spokesperson told PolitiFact that up to 6,000 voters in Arizona were potentially misclassified as federal-only voters — meaning that their ballots would not include state and local candidates. In Arizona, federal-only ballots are for people who have not registered to vote in state elections. Of that number, about 1,000 people were sent the federal-only mail-in ballots. Several news organizations reported the error. The mistake happened because of a database system error, said C. Murphy Hebert, communications director for the Arizona secretary of state’s office. The secretary of state’s voter database works in conjunction with a database from the state’s Motor Vehicles Department. If a person registers to vote online, the voter registration database checks with the motor vehicle department database to confirm whether the person has a state ID or driver’s license. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 8, 2022 in a Facebook post There’s “evidence of a massive transfer of completed, curated ballots” that are fraudulent in the 2022 election. By Ciara O'Rourke • October 11, 2022 In some cases, Hebert said, the voters had additional motor vehicle records, such as car titles. But those additional records do not include proof of citizenship. To receive a full ballot with state and local candidates, Arizona voters must have proved their U.S. citizenship, with documents such as a birth certificate. The additional motor vehicle records that lacked proof of citizenship were mistakenly transferred to the secretary of state’s database. So, those voters received federal-only ballots. "Once we identified the issue, we were able to immediately isolate it to 6,000 potential records that could have been affected," Hebert said. "The counties went back and double-checked all of those records and found that less than 1,300 of voters were actually sent federal ballots to voters who qualified for full ballots." And despite the claim, it wasn’t only Republicans who received the federal-only ballots. About 20% of those who received them were Republicans, 37% were Democrats and the remainder were independent and libertarian, according to a tweet from Hobbs. Arizona counties have already begun correcting the problem, Hebert said. "The counties have done outreach to each of the affected voters, and each of those affected voters will be sent correct ballots. Or, if they’ve already mailed their ballot back, those ballots will be isolated and set aside while the counties try to reach the voter so that they can be given a full ballot," Hebert said. If voters confirm that they want full ballots, their federal ballots will be canceled, Hebert added. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed Hobbs "sent 6,000 wrong ballots to Republicans." That’s inaccurate. 1,000 voters in Arizona mistakenly received mail-in ballots that included only federal candidates, not state and local candidates. County officials sent the ballots, not Hobbs’ office. And about 20% of voters who received the federal-only ballots were Republicans. We rate this claim False

McDonald's uses potatoes sprayed with a highly toxic pesticide called Monitor A video shared on Instagram claims McDonald’s french fries contain hidden dangers beyond expanding a person’s waistline. The video features a split screen with one portion containing text that says, "why you should never eat McDonald’s french fries," another with footage of people eating food from the chain and a third of a man warning about the toxic dangers of the potatoes used by the company. The man in the video, food writer Michael Pollan, said the potatoes McDonald’s buys for their fries are treated with a pesticide called Monitor to kill insects that can cause unsightly blemishes to appear on spuds. Pollan said Monitor is such a toxic pesticide that farmers won’t step foot on their fields for five days after spraying it on their plants. "When they harvest these potatoes they have to put them in these atmosphere-controlled sheds, the size of a football stadium because they’re not edible for six weeks," he said. "They have to off-gas all the chemicals in them." The footage of Pollan came from a talk he gave in 2013 to the Royal Society of Arts in London, several years after the U.S. stopped using the pesticide. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Monitor was a pesticide produced by Bayer AG and the trade name for methamidophos. Commercial farmers primarily used it for pest control on cotton, potato and tomato crops. Bayer requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cancel its product registration of Monitor in 2009, and the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention said all use ended that September. By the time Pollan gave his talk in 2013, the pesticide hadn’t been used for four years. McDonald’s didn’t immediately return PolitiFact’s request for comment, but the company did produce a video in 2014 showing how the potatoes the company uses are grown and processed. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 13, 2022 in a post on Facebook If a sealed bag of raw poultry appears “puffy,” it means the protein is not safe to consume. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 14, 2022 Nineteen different ingredients, including potatoes, go into making a McDonald’s french fry, none of which includes any amount of pesticide. The EPA established safety limits requiring any new or existing pesticides used on fruits and vegetables to have a "reasonable certainty of no harm" to children and adults. The agency said some trace amounts of pesticide are occasionally detected on fruits and vegetables, but not at unsafe levels. Pollan’s other claim about farmers being unable to step on a field after spraying pesticide is true, but it’s a standard safety practice. Commercial farms are required to observe a "restricted-entry interval" after using a pesticide, which prohibits anyone from entering a treated area. The restricted-entry interval depends on the pesticide that was used and can last anywhere from 12 hours up to several days. Farms that used Monitor on potato crops had to wait four days after spraying. Although harvested potatoes are stored in large, temperature-controlled sheds before being sent to consumers, it’s not because it needs to off-gas any pesticide residue, as Pollan claims. It’s to preserve the potato for as long as possible by preventing shrinkage and keeping the spud from sprouting. This storage method also helps stop any potential diseases from spreading. Our ruling An Instagram post shared footage of Pollan saying potatoes used to make McDonald’s french fries are sprayed with a highly toxic pesticide called Monitor. However, by the time Pollan gave his talk in 2013, the Monitor hadn’t been used as a pesticide for several years after the EPA canceled authorization for all of its uses at the request of its manufacturer. We rate this claim False

Facebook changed its name because it is a “dead entity” whose assets were seized A year ago, on Oct. 28, 2021, the company formerly known as Facebook announced it was changing its name to Meta. The company detailed why — and we’ll get to that — but a recent Instagram post offered another, unfounded explanation. "ead entity," the Oct. 27 post said, apparently misspelling "dead." "Assets seized along with the media companies…. That why Fakebook name change to meta….it means dead n Hebrew…..Everything is going to go down…so prepare Plan for spending time in nature and building a new community where you live." The post includes a hashtag associated with QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that in 2020 Facebook banned across all of its platforms. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Though the post doesn’t specify who supposedly seized Meta’s assets, we found no evidence to support the claim that anyone or any entity did. There are no news or government reports, nor statements from the company stating as much. It’s true that Meta sounds like the feminine form of the Hebrew word for "dead," a rebranding that drew the scorn of some Hebrew speakers in 2021. After Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the new name during an online presentation on Oct. 28, 2021, the company said in a statement that the change "brings together our apps and technologies under one new company brand." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 "Meta’s focus will be to bring the metaverse to life and help people connect, find communities and grow businesses," the statement said. The New York Times reported that the rebranding reflects how Zuckerberg "plans to refocus his Silicon Valley company on what he sees as the new digital frontier, which is the unification or disparate digital worlds into something called the metaverse." The metaverse, the Times said in a separate explainer, refers to "a variety of virtual experiences, environmental and assets that gained momentum during the online-everything shift of the pandemic." The Washington Post, meanwhile, noted that the name change came as the company was trying to "distance itself from a social-media business embroiled in crisis and rebrand itself as a forward-looking creator of a new digital world." As of Oct. 28, 2022, Zuckerberg was still at the helm of Meta as its founder, chairman and chief executive officer. The company’s assets haven’t been seized, and it’s not dead. We rate this post False.

“Kids are resistant to COVID as opposed to older people. School shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic became a topic of discussion during the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction debate. Horne attacked Kathy Hoffman, the current superintendent who is running for re-election, for being too ready to close schools during the pandemic. "Kids are resistant to COVID as opposed to older people," Horne said in the Sept. 14 debate on Arizona PBS. Debate moderator Ted Simons pointed out that children can still become infected with the virus and spread it to their families. We asked Horne to clarify what he meant when he said children are resistant to COVID-19. He said it was a matter of degree, and pointed to an Arizona Republic news article on COVID-19 deaths. "12 deaths in a year to minors from COVID, versus tens of thousands for older people." Horne said. But deaths are just one way to measure the threat from the coronavirus. COVID-19 in children Throughout the pandemic, the death rate for children 17 and younger has been much lower than that of older adults. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the winter of 2021, the pandemic’s peak, the death rate for children 5 to 11 was 0.02 per 100,000, while for people older than 75, it was over 58 deaths per 100,000. But infections, that is, cases, followed a different path. While generally lower for the young than for the old, in January 2022, the case rate among children 5 to 11 was 1,554 per 100,000. By contrast, the rate for people older than 75 was about half that — 697 per 100,000. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 12, 2022 in an Instagram post Pfizer executive “admits” vaccine was never tested for preventing transmission. By Jeff Cercone • October 13, 2022 There are many reasons for this gap. By that point in the pandemic, there were more practices to protect this most vulnerable group, including vaccinations, for which older people qualified first. A Harvard Medical School article reviewed a number of studies and found that children could still spread the virus even if they showed few or no COVID-19 symptoms."Infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults," the Sept. 16 review said. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has killed 22,520 people older than 65, representing 71% of the state’s COVID deaths. In the same period, the disease has killed 72 people younger than 20. Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at University of California, Davis Children's Hospital, emphasized that COVID-19 remains a risk to children. "Although COVID is generally more severe in older adults compared to children, children also may be infected and sometimes have severe outcomes," Blumberg said. Our ruling Horne said that "Kids are resistant to COVID as opposed to older people." The virus is far less likely to kill children than older people, but at times, children have been more likely to get infected. And whether they show symptoms or not, they can still pass the disease to more vulnerable people, including people far older than they are. We rate this claim Half True.

Only Democratic cities take “‘days’ to count their votes” while “the rest of the country manages to get it done on election night. Hoping to proactively rebut misinformation about the reliability of midterm election results, election officials are warning voters not to expect complete results on election night. They say that in many cases, ballots will still be counted in many states days later. In a tweet, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, singled out Democratic-led cities for ballot-counting delays. "Why is it only Democrat blue cities that take ‘days’ to count their votes? The rest of the country manages to get it done on election night," Cruz tweeted Oct. 27, drawing more than 20,000 likes and retweets. Cruz linked to a New York Post article that said Pennsylvania’s top elections official cautioned that official results in the races for U.S. Senate and governor won’t be available on election night. Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Leigh Chapman said that a state law doesn’t allow election officials to start opening mail ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day. The Republican-led General Assembly unanimously passed an election law in March 2020 that included that start time for processing mail ballots. Months earlier, the state passed Act 77, which stated that any voter could cast a ballot by mail. Ballot counting has lagged in some cities, which in today’s polarized electoral environment are heavily Democratic. But Cruz’s statement is misleading in multiple ways. We contacted a spokesperson for Cruz to ask whether he had additional evidence beyond the article the tweet linked to. The spokesperson provided no further evidence. Some blue big cities saw a lagging count on election night; others didn’t Cruz has a point that some big cities saw slow counts in 2020. We confirmed this using the Wayback Machine internet archive. We checked archived snapshots of The New York Times’ election results page in key states and counties to see how many votes had been reported as counted by the early morning hours the day after the election, Nov. 4. We then compared those figures with the number of ballots ultimately counted when the election was certified. • In Michigan, Wayne County (Detroit) had counted only about 40% of its ballots at a time when the state had counted 60%. • In Georgia, Fulton County (downtown Atlanta) had counted 62% when the state had counted 81%. • In Illinois, Cook County (Chicago) had counted only 75% of its vote when the state as a whole had counted 82%. • And in Wisconsin, Milwaukee County (Milwaukee) had counted 47% of its ballots by the time the state had counted 78%. All-mail-voting states such as California, Oregon and Washington state also took a week or more to count ballots, because of the logistical challenges of tallying mailed ballots quickly. Because the all-mail system is used statewide, those delays affected blue and red areas alike. Each of the counties above that counted slower than their state is a Democratic stronghold, and the trickle of relatively late, and sometimes decisive, ballots fed conspiracy theories among Republicans that votes were being manufactured. But there are solid reasons for the slower pace — and there are plenty of exceptions to Cruz’s rule about the pace of counting in big cities. In Wisconsin, for instance, Dane County (Madison) had counted well over 90% of its vote by Nov. 4’s early morning hours, noticeably outpacing the state as a whole. Dane cast about three-quarters of the number of ballots Milwaukee County did in 2020, and it was even more strongly Democratic than Milwaukee County was in that election. In Cruz’s home state of Texas, the bluest big-city areas kept pace or even exceeded the state’s counting pace. Statewide, Texas had counted 87% of its vote by the early morning hours. But Dallas County (Dallas) had counted 92%, Travis County (Austin) had counted 90%, Bexar County (San Antonio) had counted 88%, and Harris County (Houston) lagged only slightly, at 86%. Meanwhile, more than a dozen Republican counties in Texas had reported less than 70% of the vote counted by that time, most of them with small populations. In Florida, 86% of the ultimate count was tallied by the early morning hours. But two Democratic-leaning jurisdictions — Broward (Fort Lauderdale) and Miami-Dade counties — exceeded that pace slightly, with 88% and 87% counted, respectively. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 And in Arizona, Maricopa County (Phoenix) narrowly beat the statewide counting pace, 79% to 78%. Maricopa, the state’s biggest county, went narrowly for Biden after having supported Republicans in previous elections. Big cities have more ballots to count, because more people live there This may seem obvious, but it’s often lost in the debate over the pace of counts: No matter how many election workers you throw at the challenge, it’s going to take cities more time to count the votes, because there are simply more votes to count. Using Cruz’s Texas as an example, the state has 254 counties. Dozens of them were able to count their votes quickly because they had just a few thousand votes or, in some cases, a few hundred votes to tally. By contrast, Harris County ended up with 1.6 million votes and Dallas County ended up with 922,000. Because large cities are almost uniformly Democratic these days and small-population rural counties are almost always Republican, it’s easy to cast blame for slow counting on partisan factors. But the reality is that a lot depends on simple math. The idea that the rest of the country gets it done on election night is at best oversimplified No state gets the count entirely "done" on election night. Some cities, including smaller ones, may complete their unofficial count of ballots on election night. But that’s an unofficial count, and even in small jurisdictions the count may continue in the days that follow as officials sort out at least some ballots, such as absentee ballots that were missing a signature on the envelope or ballots that were cast provisionally. State laws set a deadline for official results, and that deadline is never on election night. Whether a state "gets it done" on election night, in common parlance, does not always depend on the pace of ballot counting. It depends at least as much on how close a state is expected to be. In Massachusetts, only 48% of the vote was counted by the early morning hours, and in Washington, D.C. (which has three electoral votes) only 9% was counted. But both jurisdictions are overwhelmingly blue, so media outlets were able to make calls that Biden had won them well before a majority of votes were counted. Among the states mentioned above that had slow big-city counts, the slow pace in Cook County was basically irrelevant because Biden was expected to be a heavy winner in Illinois. But the pace of counts in Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin were more consequential, and more widely noticed. That’s because the races were close in each, and collectively, those states were pivotal for determining the presidency. Cities have to follow state laws about mail ballot receipt and processing It’s important to note that these populous cities operate under ballot-handling parameters set by their states. In some cases, those rules, which determine when election officials can start processing mail ballots, are set by Republicans in state-level offices. The rules vary greatly from state to state. In some states, opening up mail ballots can’t start until Election Day. In other places, it can begin weeks before. Every state also sets its own deadline for the receipt of domestic absentee or mail ballots. The most common deadline is by the close of polls on Election Day. However, 19 states will accept ballots received after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. Our ruling Cruz said that only Democratic cities take "‘days’ to count their votes" while "the rest of the country manages to get it done on election night." He has a point that some cities — which, given today’s political environment, almost always lean Democratic — trailed their state’s pace in the vote counting in 2020. This included some pivotal, and closely watched, cities in that presidential race, including Detroit, Atlanta and Milwaukee. However, other big cities actually outpaced their states in vote-counting in 2020, including some of the biggest jurisdictions in Texas, Florida and Arizona. It will inevitably take longer for high-population cities to count their ballots quickly than small-population rural areas do. Finally, it’s important to note that cities operate under ballot-handling parameters set by their states, which in some cases have been set by Republicans who occupy state-level offices. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False. RELATED: Not all results will be known on election night 2022. That’s normal RELATED: Why France reports election results faster than the US RELATED: Sen. Ted Cruz on the Truth-O-Met

Blake Masters “wants to privatize” Social Security In the final weeks before the midterm elections, Democrats nationwide are warning voters that Republicans pose a threat to Social Security. In a newspaper interview, Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly leveled that charge against Republican challenger Blake Masters. Kelly had been in Yuma, Arizona, meeting with voters. "Yuma has a lot of retirees," Kelly said in an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, a conservative news outlet, Oct. 26. "My opponent? He wants to send their Social Security to Wall Street. He wants to privatize it. He wants to cut the knot. He refers to Social Security in some negative way and he wants to give it to Wall Street." During the Republican primary, Master floated the idea of privatization, but he retreated from the idea after he won the GOP nomination. What Masters said in the primary At a June debate in Arizona, the Republican Senate candidates were asked about reports of Medicare and Social Security going insolvent in future years. "What should be done to keep the promise that the federal government made to current beneficiaries?" the moderator asked. "What should retirement security or financial freedom look like for the next generation?" Masters, 36, brought up privatization, saying: "We do need entitlement reform, but we can’t just slash entitlements; it’s more complicated than that, right? We can’t pull the rug out from seniors who are currently receiving Social Security, who are currently receiving Medicare. People have built their financial lives around these programs. And so, how to reform the system in a way that doesn’t actually hurt the people who paid into it, right? "We’ve got to cut the knot at some point, though, because, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to receive Social Security. … My kids, they’re not going to receive Social Security. And we need fresh and innovative thinking, right? Maybe we should privatize Social Security, right? Private retirement accounts, get the government out of it, past a certain point, because the government, it is just too big." At another time, Masters told a voter that, "I don’t think we should, like, mess with Social Security," but he also said he favored loosening restrictions on investment accounts for young people. Social Security relies on dedicated payroll taxes to cover the cost of benefits to retirees. The program is out of balance and is spending more each year than it takes in. Featured Fact-check Blake Masters stated on October 15, 2022 in a tweet Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans.” By Jon Greenberg • October 21, 2022 Privatization would let people take the money that would have gone toward Social Security and put it into private retirement funds. It’s a contentious proposal. Some analysts say privatization would reduce the draw on public benefits decades later; other analysts warn that diverting money from the public program would drain it of the funds it needs to survive. A shift of emphasis in the general election After he won the primary, Masters sat down with an Arizona Republic reporter. Asked about his past words about Social Security, Masters said he was "committed to shoring up the system, and making it work." "I do not want to privatize Social Security," Masters said. "I think, in context, I was talking about something very different. We can't change the system. We can't pull the rug out from seniors. I will never, ever support cutting Social Security." PolitiFact rated Masters’ shift as a Half Flip on our Flip-O-Meter, which rates an official's consistency on an issue. A Half Flip reflects a partial change in position. In a recent interview, Masters said he was committed to preserving Social Security and would never cut it. "People have built their whole lives around relying on the government’s promises that Social Security will be there," Masters said on "The Charlie Kirk Show" on Oct. 26. "So, we have to protect it. I’m looking for ways to save the system." The Kelly campaign doesn’t argue that Masters has stopped talking about privatization. It just doesn’t believe it. "Masters clearly previously said that he supports privatizing Social Security," said Kelly campaign spokeswoman Sarah Guggenheimer. "We’d argue that he should be held accountable for those words, and no amount of backtracking can disguise where he actually stands." Our ruling Kelly said Masters "wants to privatize" Social Security. During the primary, Masters said "maybe, we should privatize Social Security." He no longer mentions that option and says he’s looking for ways to preserve the program for anyone who has counted on it being there. Kelly was speaking in the present tense and Masters is saying something different today. Kelly’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate his claim Mostly False. RELATED: Democrats attack Republican Social Security plans. What’s in the

“It’s not that there is no evidence the election was stolen, but that no court had the guts to HEAR the evidence. They dismissed the cases, NOT the evidence. Former President Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden in November 2020. Unwilling to accept that defeat, the Trump campaign and its allies took their grievances to the courts — an ultimately unsuccessful effort to overturn the results. Conservatives filed a flood of lawsuits alleging there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election that robbed Trump of victory. At nearly every turn, judges across the country rejected such lawsuits for a variety of reasons, including lack of sufficient evidence to support the claims of fraud. Nearly two years later, some social media users continue to claim that the courts refused to even consider such evidence. "It’s not that there is no evidence the election was stolen, but that no court had the guts to hear the evidence," read an image posted Oct. 25 on Instagram. "They dismissed the cases, not the evidence. They refused to look at it, because the price of getting involved was too high. This is how evil destroys a republic." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Election security officials — including those in Trump’s own administration — have said the 2020 election was secure. When fraud occurred it was isolated and did not change the results. There is no evidence of widespread fraud. Many post-election lawsuits were thrown out for jurisdictional or procedural reasons, but several judges also noted that the allegations of fraud lacked proof. (Screenshot from Instagram.) Courts operate according to law, said Richard Pildes, a New York University law professor. "Sometimes the law is that the person trying to bring a claim doesn’t have any legal right to do so, or that a claim that should have been brought before the election cannot be brought after the election, when everyone has voted already," Pildes said. "That’s not because courts lack the ‘courage’ to address these cases on the merits. It’s because courts are following the law about what constitutes a valid legal claim." News reports and court documents show that some of the judges who dismissed Trump supporters’ post-election lawsuits considered what the plaintiffs presented as their evidence and still dismissed those challenges. In a number of cases, the courts rejected claims "on the merits as well," Pildes said. In Nevada, Trump supporters sued to challenge the state’s election results and seeking an order from the court declaring Trump the winner or declaring Biden’s victory "null and void." Dismissing the lawsuit on Dec. 4, 2020, District Court James T. Russell wrote that the people behind it failed "to provide credible and relevant evidence" to contest the Nov. 3, 2020 election in accordance with Nevada laws. Trump allies "did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud," Russell wrote. The contestants failed to prove that illegal votes by ineligible or deceased voters were cast and counted, he wrote. Featured Fact-check Tim Michels stated on October 24, 2022 in News conference Tony Evers “wants to let out between 9,000 and 10,000 more” Wisconsin prisoners By Madeline Heim • November 4, 2022 Russell also noted that it reached its ruling "having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the court." In Pennsylvania, a federal appeals panel of three judges — each appointed by Republican presidents — rejected one of the Trump campaign’s election challenges Nov. 27, 2020. "Charges of unfairness are serious," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed by Trump. "But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Later in the ruling, Bibas continued: "The campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters." Attorney Sidney Powell speaks during a rally on Dec. 2, 2020, in Alpharetta, Ga. Powell and eight other lawyers allied with former President Donald Trump were ordered Dec. 2, 2021, to pay Detroit and Michigan $175,000 in sanctions for abusing the court system with a sham lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results. (AP) A group of conservatives that included former U.S. senators, Republican lawyers and retired federal judges, examined 64 cases brought by Trump and his supporters and authored a report titled, "Lost, not stolen: The conservative case that Trump lost and Biden won the 2020 presidential election." Of 64 cases, the group found: 20 were dismissed before hearings on the merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his allies before hearings on the merits, And 30 cases included hearings on the merits. Trump and his supporters won only one Pennsylvania case "involving far too few votes to overturn the results," the group of conservatives wrote. Trump and his supporters were given forums to prove their claims of fraud, the group concluded. And yet, "those efforts failed because of a lack of evidence and not because of erroneous rulings or unfair judges." Our ruling An Instagram post claimed: "It’s not that there is no evidence the election was stolen, but that no court had the guts to hear the evidence. They dismissed the cases, not the evidence." Although a number of lawsuits challenging the 2020 election’s results were dismissed for procedural or jurisdictional reasons, it’s inaccurate to say that judges refused to review the evidence of alleged fraud. Court records show that some judges dismissed cases after reviewing the evidence and determining it did not sufficiently prove election fraud. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Donald Trump has lost dozens of election lawsuits. Here’s why RELATED: Trump did not win two-thirds of election lawsuits ‘where merits considered’ RELATED: The facts of a fair US election have only gotten stronger since Capitol atta

Former President Donald Trump issued an Oct. 27 statement saying he was told his Twitter account “will be back up and running on Monday. First came the fake tweets that made it appear that former President Donald Trump was thanking billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk for restoring his Twitter account. Now — since Musk successfully purchased the social media company and assumed ownership Oct. 27 — come the fake statements. "Congratulations to Elon Musk on his purchase of Twitter," began what appeared to be an Oct. 27 statement from Trump. "Many people are saying that change was needed, as the old management was too concerned with the woke agenda. I have been told that my account will be back up and running on Monday — we will see. Happy to be able to engage with an African-American owned business!" Musk, who is white, is from South Africa. An Instagram post sharing an image of the purported statement was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Though the image showed Trump’s "Save America" letterhead, we found no such message on Trump’s website, where news articles, endorsements and statements are shared. The last statement on the site from the former president is dated Oct. 24. Twitter permanently suspended Trump’s Twitter account after the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021 over concerns that his comments could incite violence. There’s been widespread speculation that Trump could return to the site if Musk, who has called himself a "free-speech absolutist," lifts the ban. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 10, 2022 in a post “Premature babies are at a much higher risk of injury from immunizations than full-term babies.” By Andy Nguyen • October 13, 2022 Twitter did not immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the fate of Trump’s account. Trump also did not respond to questions from PolitiFact. Trump said on Truth Social on Oct. 28 that his social media platform "looks and works better" than Twitter and that he’s "very happy that Twitter is now in sane hands, and will no longer be run by the Radical Left Lunatics and Maniacs that truly hate our country." "Twitter must now work hard to rid itself of bots and fake accounts that have hurt it so badly," Trump said in the post. "It will be much smaller, but better. I LOVE TRUTH!" He didn’t mention returning to Twitter. Several conservative commentators, Russian state media, and an MSNBC show were duped by the fake statement circulating online, Insider reported. But we found no evidence that it’s actually from Trump. We rate claims that it is Fals

The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections. Republicans who believe the falsehood about widespread voter fraud in 2020 often cite the "2,000 Mules" movie about mail ballot drop boxes in battlegrounds, including Arizona. An Instagram post praises efforts by people filming voters at drop boxes "to make sure that there is no ballot stuffing." The post then states: "We all Watch the documentary 2000 mules and watched how they cheated on the 2020 elections not to mention the Dominion voting machines." It adds that the ballot boxes and electronic machines should be outlawed "because that's how the Dems are going to cheat again and again and again." The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Instagram post is wrong. The "2,000 Mules" documentary did not prove that Democrats engaged in widespread cheating in 2020. Don’t take just our word for it: Republican election and government officials have said so. The 2,000 Mules movie doesn’t prove fraud The "2,000 Mules" documentary was made by Dinesh D’Souza, a far-right commentator, author and documentary filmmaker with a long record of provocation and incendiary rhetoric. Former President Donald Trump pardoned D’Souza for a felony campaign finance violation. The movie alleges that massive fraud took place in the 2020 presidential election. Specifically, it argued that 2,000 people collected 400,000 illegal votes and delivered them to vote drop boxes in key states that went for Joe Biden. The movie incorporates research by Texas-based True the Vote, a national organization that has spread misinformation about voting. The organization claimed that certain people it called "mules" repeatedly passed by certain drop boxes. These repeat visits, they argued, revealed a set of delivery runs. In testimony to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former Attorney General William Barr said the data revealed nothing at all. "If you take 2 million cellphones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition, you will find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," said Barr, who served during the Trump administration. Drop boxes are placed in busy places to make voting convenient. Inevitably, many people will pass by drop boxes several times. This wasn’t just Barr’s take. State officials said cellphone data showing 279 cellphones tracked multiple times within 100 feet of an absentee drop box was not evidence of a crime, Georgia Public Radio reported. We sent the Instagram post to election or law enforcement officials in a handful of battleground states to ask whether they found the movie showed Democrats cheating via drop boxes or if they ever received evidence to back up the allegations in the movie. None of them did. Featured Fact-check Tweets stated on November 8, 2022 in a tweet “There is no chain of custody” for ballots placed in Box No. 3 at Maricopa, Arizona, polling sites. By Jon Greenberg • November 8, 2022 The Georgia State Election Board sent subpoenas to True the Vote in April seeking their evidence. Robert Sinners, a spokesperson for the Georgia secretary of state said that as of Oct. 26 the group has not complied. "‘2,000 Mules’ proves that you can make a neat map of Moscow, throw a few dots on it, and raise a bunch of money," Sinners said. True the Vote representatives met with officials from the office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, three times about their allegations, wrote Reggie Grigsby, a chief special agent for the attorney general. But the group never provided evidence of ballot stuffing or voter fraud. A spokesperson for Pennsylvania’s attorney general said his office was never provided evidence to prove Democrats cheated via drop boxes. We received a similar response from a spokesperson for the Michigan secretary of state and the Wisconsin Elections Commission. A Wisconsin elections spokesperson referred us to a statement from the commission that said "data allegedly showing cell phones that were tracked multiple times near absentee ballot drop boxes is, alone, not evidence of a crime." We could find only a couple of instances of criminal convictions related to the use of ballot drop boxes in 2020; both were in Arizona. Under a 2016 Arizona law, it is illegal for anyone other than a direct relative or caregiver to deliver someone else’s early ballot. Guillermina Fuentes, a Democratic Party activist and former mayor of San Luis, was charged with dropping off four early ballots in violation of that law. She pleaded guilty to the felony charge of ballot abuse. A friend who was with her that day pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. The Associated Press surveyed state and local election officials nationwide and found no major problems with the use of mail ballot drop boxes. All but five states responded to the questions, and none of the states that allowed drop boxes reported any instances connected to voter fraud. The Instagram post is one of many social media posts nationwide this fall that are born out of the falsehood that voting by mail invites significant fraud. These falsehoods have lived on despite facts presented by Republican officials, including Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, defending the 2020 election’s security. The majority of Arizonans cast ballots by mail. Our ruling An Instagram post says that the documentary "2,000 Mules" proves Democrats "cheated on the 2020 elections." Elections and law enforcement officials in battleground states have said that they have not received evidence to prove the allegations in the "2,000 Mules" movie that suggests widespread cheating via ballot drop boxes. Barr, attorney general under Trump, also publicly rejected the movie’s premise. We could find only two cases of individuals convicted related to violating rules about ballot drop boxes. We rate this statement False. RELATED: In Jan. 6 hearing, former AG Bill Barr discredits ‘2,000 Mules’ voter fraud film RELATED: The faulty premise of the ‘2,000 Mules’ trailer about voting by mail in the 2020 electi

Connecticut ballot initiative on early voting would "remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots. An ominous warning is being sent to Connecticut voters by way of a Facebook post. "Pay Close Attention Connecticut Voters!!!" it says before launching into a claim about a sneaky ballot initiative that threatens to "alter the voting laws to allow early voting" and "remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots when submitted to the Secretary of the State (meaning that certain ballots don’t have to have security seals to be processed because we can trust them.)" "That’s a great big oh-hell-no!" the post says above a picture of the Joker. The Oct. 18 post was flagged by Meta as part of the platform’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) What the post doesn’t say is that this entire seal question is a bit of a nonissue. Here’s why. An amendment would allow for early voting, and while there will be an impact on some supposed "seals" that’s only because the measure will also serve to eliminate outdated language about wax seals that were used in the 1800s. According to a summary of the ballot question provided by the state’s Office of Legislative Research, the ballot question asks: "Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to permit the General Assembly to provide for early voting?" If voters approve the initiative, it would allow the General Assembly to pass legislation establishing in-person early voting. So, where did the statement about a "seal" come from? We found that in the research office’s explanation of the amendment: "Additionally, approval of the amendment would eliminate the constitutional requirement that certain copies of election results, when sent to the Secretary of the State, be under seal. It would not change the statutory requirement that these copies be sent under seal." The summary says that it would eliminate certain copies of election results sent to the secretary of state be under seal, not actual ballots as claimed in the Facebook post. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in a post Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs “sent 6,000 wrong ballots to Republicans.” By Gabrielle Settles • October 28, 2022 Desmond Conner, communications director for the Connecticut Secretary of State's Office, said eliminating the need for a seal is about updating centuries-old language. "The reference in the constitutional amendment to seals is a reference to removing antiquated language regarding the use of an old-fashioned wax seal that was used in the 1800s," he said. "It has nothing to do with seals on voting machines or ballots." Conner said the ballot itself contains only the question on early voting. Diana Evans, a member of Common Cause’s advisory board and a retired political science professor from Trinity College, said the Facebook claim is "absurd" because the ballot initiative is about in-person voting. "This has absolutely nothing to do with (fictitious) ballot seals," said Evans, who supports the early voting amendment. Connecticut is an outlier for not offering early voting to voters. Forty-six states offer early in-person voting (this includes states with all-mail elections), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Civic groups such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters support adding early voting in Connecticut. Our ruling A Facebook post claimed a Connecticut ballot initiative asking voters to bless early voting would eliminate the need for certain ballots to have security seals. If voters approve to enact early voting in the state, it will change outdated wording in the state's constitution that required a physical, wax seal to be stamped on certain copies of election results. The seal has nothing to do with paper ballots or voting machines. We rate this claim False. RELATED: All of our fact-checks about election

DJ Mighty Mouse died because of a COVID-19 booster vaccine On Oct. 25, the Defected Records label announced that Matthew Ward, better known to some people as DJ Mighty Mouse, "died suddenly" Oct. 20 at his home in Spain. Ward died in his sleep from an aortic aneurysm, the label said in a Facebook post. News of his death was met with condolences from fans and music industry colleagues. It also generated unsupported claims from COVID-19 vaccine skeptics who connected, without evidence, Ward’s inoculation history and his passing. One Instagram post shared an Independent headline about Ward’s death and an April 11 tweet he posted that said: "Just had my booster jab, definitely does not come with a boost of energy. "To be fair, prolonged exposure to house music could’ve caused his aneurysm just as well as the poke," the post said. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 We reached out to Defected Records about the claim Ward died from the booster shot and didn’t immediately hear back. But the Independent story the post cites doesn’t mention the vaccine, and we couldn’t find any other credible news reports or sources that suggested it could have caused Ward’s death. RELATED VIDEO An aortic aneurysm is a bulge that occurs in the wall of the major blood vessel that carries blood from the heart to the body, according to the Mayo Clinic. It increases the risk of developing a tear in the aortic wall’s inner layer. Blood can leak through the tear or the aneurysm can rupture completely, and both can be fatal. In 2019, for example, 9,904 Americans died because of aortic aneurysms or ruptures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, and more than half of those deaths were men. Smoking, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and hardened arteries are all risk factors. Some rare heart-related side effects have been linked to COVID-19 vaccines, but health officials say the disease itself poses a much greater heart risk than do the vaccines that protect against it. The National Institutes of Health said the benefits of getting vaccinated "markedly outweigh the very small risk of vaccine-related myocarditis." The NIH also said the risk of myocarditis linked with COVID-19 illness is several times greater than the risk from vaccination, and is often more serious. We don’t know what caused Ward’s aneurysm. But claims that it was a COVID-19 booster are being made without evidence. We rate this claim Fals

“PCR tests used to put luciferase in the brain. Last fall, false rumors that COVID-19 vaccines contained luciferase spread online. This year, an Instagram post has gained traction claiming the enzyme that interacts with a protein called luciferin to release light is present in COVID-19 tests. "PCR tests used to put luciferase in the brain/neurons," an Oct. 25 post said. "Zombie apocalypse — how they will do it!!! … Do not take the PCR test!!!" This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Dr. Apurv Soni, an assistant professor of medicine at UMass Chan Medical School who has studied PCR tests during the pandemic, told us it’s not true that PCR tests use luciferase. The tests involve using swabs similar to Q-tips to collect nasal or oral samples from the body. The material collected on the swabs is then analyzed to detect any viral RNA material, Soni said. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 12, 2022 in an Instagram post Pfizer executive “admits” vaccine was never tested for preventing transmission. By Jeff Cercone • October 13, 2022 "No new material is being added to your body when you get a PCR test," Soni said. RELATED VIDEO Luciferase can be used "to tag certain proteins and genes with biofluorescence so that they can be investigated to understand diseases at a genetic and molecular level," Soni said, but that’s not what’s happening with PCR tests. And while some claims about luciferase and COVID-19 vaccines and tests appear couched in a biblical context, the enzyme doesn’t refer to the devil. Luciferase is derived from the latin roots "lux," meaning "light," and "ferre," meaning "to carry," Soni said. "Lucifer translates to lightbearer, which is an apt description of luciferase assays." We rate claims that PCR tests put luciferase in your brain False.

Catherine Cortez Masto "was the deciding vote” to send COVID-19 stimulus checks to more than 1 million prisoners A TV ad claims that Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., is responsible for more than 1 million prison inmates receiving federal stimulus checks. Cortez Masto faces Republican Adam Laxalt in Nevada’s toss-up race that could decide which party controls the Senate, now split 50-50. The 30-second spot is from Club for Growth Action, a conservative super PAC. It opens with a narrator listing names and crimes as an image of a prison or jail cell appears in the background: "Anthony Robinson, double murder; Larry Norwood, sex trafficking; Robert Evans, child pornography; Jonathan Dickerson, fentanyl distribution." A footnote on the screen refers to a January Fox News story. The story said the four are convicted felons serving prison sentences in four states, none in Nevada, who received $1,400 federal stimulus checks. Courts ordered all four to relinquish the payments so the money could go toward restitution for their crimes, the story said. The ad’s narrator continues by saying: "Over 1 million prisoners received COVID stimulus checks, thanks to Catherine Cortez Masto. She was the deciding vote to send your money to these criminals." Images of Cortez Masto appear on the screen. Club for Growth Action also ran a Spanish-language version of the ad. The ad reflects the gamesmanship and exaggeration that occurs every election year as groups and political candidates attack incumbents for their legislative votes. Rather than just say the senator voted for a proposal, the attackers up the ante by declaring the senator delivered the single vote that made the difference. Cortez Masto was one of 50 senators who voted to not exclude inmates from receiving a third round of checks. But her vote on the amendment did not carry any more weight than a vote from any of the other senators. We asked Club for Growth Action about this and it provided no information that would distinguish Cortez Masto’s vote from the other "no" votes. She did nothing, such as withholding her support until the last moment, that would justify singling her out. The stimulus plans Three laws sent Americans 472 million stimulus checks totaling $803 billion. The laws were written broadly enough that incarcerated people were eligible for the payments. So, more than 1 million stimulus payments were sent to incarcerated people over the three stimulus plans. Featured Fact-check Adam Laxalt stated on November 20, 2022 in an ad “Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • November 3, 2022 President Donald Trump signed the first two bills, which received bipartisan support. The ad refers to the third law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, which President Joe Biden signed in March 2021. It provided stimulus checks of $1,400 for single taxpayers and $2,800 for joint filers. When this proposal was being considered, Republicans introduced an amendment seeking to explicitly disqualify inmates from a stimulus check. It did not pass. Vote on prisoners receiving checks The Democratic caucus in the Senate passed the American Rescue Plan on March 6, 2021, by a vote of 50-49, with Cortez Masto voting yes. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, did not vote. Another 50-49 vote the same day defeated a Republican amendment that would have excluded prisoners from the stimulus checks. Cortez Masto voted against the amendment; Sullivan did not vote. All 50 votes from the Democratic caucus were needed to reject the amendment. But each one can’t be the deciding vote. Josh Marcus Blank, a Cortez Masto campaign spokesperson, noted that Cortez Masto said in January that she supported a Treasury Department decision allowing states to seize stimulus payments from violent criminals who owed restitution to their victims. Our ruling Club for Growth Action said Cortez Masto "was the deciding vote" to send COVID-19 stimulus checks to more than 1 million prisoners. The Senate passed three bills on stimulus checks, prisoners qualified for the payments because of broad eligibility rules. A vote to exclude inmates was held only for the third round of checks. Cortez Masto was one of 50 senators who voted against the amendment. But describing hers as the "deciding vote" suggests Cortez Masto had some extraordinarily pivotal role, and that’s not the case. We rate the claim Mostly False. RELATED: Fact-checking ads in the 2022 election campaigns RELATED: Nevada fact-checks RELATED: Yes, Democrats voted to send stimulus checks to prisoners, as Republicans did last ye

Proposed Senate bill would give FDA power to approve dietary supplements and “ban herbs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long had a role in regulating dietary supplements. But that role does not include approving the tens of thousands of vitamins, minerals, herbs and other products that have multiplied on store shelves in the decades since their regulatory oversight began. A bipartisan proposal by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., introduced in April seeks to give the FDA and consumers more information about those products. Some on social media, however, are misinterpreting the proposed law’s intent, saying it would give the FDA new power to approve or ban products. "BREAKING: Senate is requiring all dietary supplements to be regulated and approved by the FDA," read an Oct. 25 Instagram post. "As of right now herbal medicine is a supplement. They are trying to ban herbs." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The post misstates what the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022 would do if it is passed. Under current law, passed in 1994, the FDA has certain regulatory powers over dietary supplements. It can inspect manufacturing facilities, review product labels to ensure they don’t include claims that would render them drugs, monitor adverse event reports and act to remove dangerous products from the market. It does not have authority to approve products before they go to market. Durbin, in an April Senate floor speech about his proposal, said the 1994 law has some flaws. "Manufacturers of dietary supplements … are not required to tell the Food and Drug Administration what products they’re selling in the United States under what names," he said. "They’re not required to disclose to the FDA what is in those products, or where they are manufactured. "When it comes to dietary supplements," he said, "the Food and Drug Administration and American consumers are pretty much flying blind." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 13, 2022 in a post on Facebook If a sealed bag of raw poultry appears “puffy,” it means the protein is not safe to consume. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 14, 2022 The proposed Dietary Supplement Listing Act, according to a fact sheet provided by Braun’s office, would require the FDA to create an online tool that consumers can use to search for information about supplements. The tool would "list manufacturer contact information, ingredients, serving sizes, general safety information, health claims, allergens, safety warnings and precautions for all dietary supplements." The bill would require companies introducing dietary supplements to the market to register the supplement with the FDA and provide that information, including where the product is manufactured, according to a summary of the legislation. The law does not grant the FDA authority to approve any products before they go to market or any new authority to remove products from the marketplace, according to the fact sheet and the text of the bill. It explicitly states that the law should not be construed as expanding FDA authority. The Council for Responsible Nutrition, the largest trade group in the industry, hopes to see the legislation passed. The FDA estimates there are between 55,000 and 80,000 dietary supplement products on the market, but can't provide exact figures because the agency isn’t made aware of all new products, said Steve Mister, president and CEO of the council. "We are strong supporters of this. We call it mandatory product listing," said Mister, who said the transparency made possible by companies providing the FDA with their labels is "incredibly important" for the agency and consumers. "FDA does not have premarket approval over dietary supplements. We would not want them to have premarket approval over our products," he said. "But they should know what products are in the marketplace, so that they can exercise the oversight that they do have." A modified version of Durbin and Braun’s bill was initially included in a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee’s package reauthorizing FDA user fees, but it was later stripped out by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Axios reported. Language added to the modified proposal explicitly made clear that the plan would not grant the "authority to require approval of a dietary supplement prior to marketing" to the secretary of Health and Human Services, to whom the FDA reports. The proposed bill has been referred to the same Senate committee, and it’s not clear whether it will advance. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that the proposed Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022 would give the FDA new power to regulate and approve dietary supplements, and is an attempt to ban herbal medicines. The FDA has had regulatory authority over dietary supplements since 1994, and this bill does not expand its powers. Nor does it grant the FDA the power to approve a product before it goes to market. The bill would require supplement makers to register new products with the FDA and provide information about them. The FDA would use that information to create an online database of such products that consumers could also reference. We rate this Fals

Photo shows “Russian soldiers with a Ukrainian girl, celebrating their human trophy. A photo spreading on Instagram shows someone kneeling and blindfolded as four people stand around bearing weapons and making faces. "Russian soldiers with a Ukrainian girl, celebrating their human trophy," a description of the image says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) That’s because the photo has been online for more than a decade and isn’t related to the current conflict in Ukraine. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 RELATED VIDEO Haaretz posted the image in August 2010 as part of a story about Israeli Defense Forces soldiers posting photos on Facebook that show them posing with bound Palestinian detainees. The caption of the image that appears in that story says: "IDF soldiers with a Palestinian detainee." We rate claims that this image shows Russian soldiers with a Ukrainian girl False.

The COVID-19 vaccine caused Katy Perry’s eye to close during a recent show Singer-songwriter Katy Perry was performing in Las Vegas when video captured one of her eyes dropping closed and staying there until she placed a finger to her face and it opened back up again. The artist hasn’t commented on the incident, but the video, viewed tens of thousands of times, has fueled speculation about the moment that so far lacks evidence. Some have hypothesized Perry’s shut eyelid was caused by glue for false eyelashes or heavy theatrical makeup. Others have blamed the COVID-19 vaccine. "Eye of the Pfizer," one Instagram post said, riffing on a lyric from Perry’s song "Roar." "This girl is on Pfizer," another said, apparently referencing an Alicia Keys song. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We reached out to Perry’s agent about the posts but didn’t immediately hear back. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 However, there’s no evidence to support the claims that her eye closed during a performance because of a COVID-19 vaccine. Perry has talked in the past about what she calls her "wonk eye." In a video posted on YouTube in 2011, she showed eyedrops she said she uses to keep her eye from squinting shut more than her other eye. Perry has advocated for people to get COVID-19 vaccines. For Halloween 2021, she dressed up as a vaccine while her fiancé, actor Orlando Bloom, went as a doctor. He posted a picture of the pair on Instagram with the caption, "I vaxed a girl and I liked it." UNICEF also named Perry and Bloom Goodwill Ambassadors in its effort to urge countries like the United States to donate doses of COVID-19 vaccines to poorer countries. We don’t know what caused Perry’s eye to shut. But to claim that it was a COVID-19 vaccine follows a familiar playbook of claiming any health problem or change in a person’s physical appearance is a result of the vaccine. RELATED VIDEO Similar claims emerged after singer Justin Bieber and his wife, Hailey Bieber, shared details about medical conditions on social media. Justin Bieber was diagnosed with Ramsay Hunt syndrome, a rare illness that caused full paralysis on one side of his face, and Hailey Bieber was hospitalized after a blood clot traveled to her brain. But experts we spoke with at the time said that there’s no evidence vaccines caused either condition. Medical experts say the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing serious or fatal cases of the disease. The risk of serious side effects is small. With no evidence showing that the COVID-19 vaccine is connected to Perry’s eye incident, we rate this claim Fals

“El CDC está a punto de agregar la vacuna Co vid al calendario de vacunación infantil, lo que haría que la vacunación sea obligatoria para que los niños asistan a la escuela” Una reunión rutinaria de un grupo de expertos en vacunas que asesoran a los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) se convirtió en el blanco de una tormenta de desinformación. Por las redes sociales, se comenzaron a difundir rumores de que un voto del grupo podría resultar en mandatos nacionales para la vacuna contra el COVID-19 para los niños en edad escolar. Una de estas publicaciones en Instagram, reclamó erróneamente el 20 de octubre que "El CDC está a punto de agregar la vacuna Co vid al calendario de vacunación infantil, lo que haría que la vacunación sea obligatoria para que los niños asistan a la escuela". La ortografía de la palabra "Co vid" es probablemente una manera intencional de evitar el monitoreo en redes sociales. La publicación incluye un video del presentador de Fox News, Tucker Carlson, hablando en inglés en el que repite la falsa declaración. PolitiFact ya ha calificado la declaración de Carlson como Mayormente Falsa. Tanto los comentarios de Carlson, como la publicación de Instagram malinterpretan el impacto del voto por parte del comité de asesoría. Los estados son los que establecen los requisitos de vacunación para asistir a las escuelas o guarderías, no el CDC. La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Facebook para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Facebook.) El 20 de octubre, el Comité Asesor sobre Prácticas de Vacunación (ACIP, por sus siglas en inglés) votó a favor de añadir las vacunas contra el COVID-19 al calendario de vacunas del CDC para el 2023 para niños y adultos. El calendario de vacunación del CDC está compuesto por una serie de recomendaciones de vacunas rutinarias, las cuales se basan en el aporte del comité de asesoría. El comité — un grupo de expertos en medicina y salud pública, el cual incluye expertos en vacunas, médicos y científicos — analiza la información sobre las vacunas nuevas y existentes para proponer sus recomendaciones. Los calendarios de vacunación también son aprobados por grupos médicos como la Academia Estadounidense de Pediatría (AAP, por sus siglas en inglés) para los niños y el American College of Physicians para los adultos. Distintos expertos le explicaron a PolitiFact que el voto del comité para incluir las vacunas contra el COVID-19 en el calendario rutinario de inmunización del CDC es tan solo una recomendación de cuáles vacunas deben ser proporcionadas. No es un mandato. Aunque los funcionarios estatales consideran las recomendaciones del comité de asesoría del CDC cuando establecen sus requisitos, los expertos señalaron que ningún estado sigue las recomendaciones del CDC al pie de la letra. Las recomendaciones del comité de asesoría influyen, pero no son determinantes, dijo Dorit Reiss, experta en mandatos de vacunación de la Facultad de Derecho Hastings College de la Universidad de California. El CDC refutó la declaración de Carlson por Twitter, diciendo que "los estados establecen los requisitos de vacunación para los niños en edad escolar, no el ACIP o el CDC". PolitiFact contactó a Carlson y su portavoz nos dirigió a un segmento de su programa del 19 de octubre, en el que redobló la declaración errónea. Reclamó que el CDC había mentido porque "más de 12 estados siguen el calendario de vacunación del CDC para establecer requisitos de inmunización — no sugerencias, requisitos — para que los niños puedan estudiar". Dijo que en estados como Massachusetts. Tennessee, Nueva Jersey, Vermont y Ohio tienen políticas en las que requieren que sus estudiantes reciban las vacunaciones incluidas en el calendario de inmunización del CDC. Sin embargo, esto no es lo que dicen estas políticas. Katie Warchut, portavoz del departamento de salud de Vermont, explicó que el estatuto estatal establece los requisitos de vacunación para asistir a la escuela. El departamento convoca su propio comité de asesoría que toma en cuenta las recomendaciones del CDC, explicó, "pero no está limitado por ellas". Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 Por ejemplo, aunque el calendario de inmunización del CDC recomienda la vacuna contra la influenza, esta no hace parte de la lista de vacunas requeridas para asistir a la escuela en Vermont. Es recomendada. El voto del comité El 20 de octubre, el comité de asesoría votó sobre "actualizaciones a los calendarios de inmunización del 2023 para niños y adultos, incluyendo si se debían añadir las vacunas aprobadas y autorizadas contra el COVID-19", Kate Grusich, portavoz del CDC señaló antes del voto. El comité después votó a favor de añadir la vacuna del COVID-19 al calendario. Grusich comentó que añadir la vacuna contra el COVID-19 a los calendarios de inmunización, optimizaría la dirección clínica para proveedores médicos e incluiría "todas las vacunas actualmente licenciadas, autorizadas y recomendadas rutinariamente" en un mismo lugar. (El calendario para niños se encuentra aquí.) El comité de asesoría ya había recomendado la vacuna contra el COVID-19 para niños y la había añadido a un calendario de vacunación interino, dijo Reiss de la Facultad de Derecho Hastings. La discusión del 20 de octubre lidiaba con "determinar si se debía añadir al calendario rutinario, y abordaba si se debía recomendar en general, no solo en casos de emergencia", explicó Reiss. Las vacunas contra el COVID-19 han sido aprobadas por la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés) para niños de 12 años de edad en adelante. Para niños menores de 12 años, las vacunas permanecen bajo una Autorización de Uso de Emergencia del FDA. ¿Quién establece los requisitos de vacunación para los distritos escolares? El CDC no determina cuáles vacunas son requeridas para que los estudiantes puedan asistir a la escuela o guardería, explicaron los expertos. Los estados establecen esos requisitos. El Dr. William Schaffner, un profesor de política de salud en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Vanderbilt, dijo que no hay mandatos de vacunación escolares federales — ni del congreso ni del CDC. "Nunca ha sucedido", explicó. Schaffner hace parte del comité de asesoría del CDC como representante no-votante intermediario de la Fundación Nacional para Enfermedades Infecciosas (NFID, por sus siglas en inglés). Cada estado tiene su propio proceso por el cual se añaden nuevas vacunas a la lista de inmunizaciones requeridas, dijo Schaffner. Comentó que no cree que la actualización al calendario de inmunizaciones del CDC provocará que los estados requieran la vacuna contra el COVID-19. "No ha sucedido para la vacuna contra la influenza", Schaffner resaltó, "Todas las personas mayores de seis meses en los Estados Unidos deben estar vacunadas contra la influenza anualmente. Esa ha sido la recomendación del comité de asesoría del CDCC por más de 10 años. Creo que no hay ningún estado que tenga un mandato para las vacunas contra la influenza". Reiss confirmó que ningún estado requiere la vacuna contra la influenza para asistir a la escuela y "una minoría" la requieren para las guarderías. Nuestra calificación Una publicación en Instagram dice que "El CDC está a punto de agregar la vacuna Co vid al calendario de vacunación infantil, lo que haría que la vacunación sea obligatoria para que los niños asistan a la escuela". Esto malinterpreta el alcance del calendario de inmunización del CDC. No es un mandato. El CDC no establece los requisitos de vacunación para asistir a las escuelas o las guarderías; los estados son los encargados de esto. Aunque los funcionarios estatales toman en cuenta las recomendaciones del CDC, los expertos dijeron que ningún estado sigue las recomendaciones al pie de la letra. La publicación contiene un elemento de verdad porque la vacuna contra el COVID-19 fue añadida al calendario de inmunización para niños. Sin embargo, ignora hechos críticos que darían una impresión diferente. Calificamos esta publicación como Mayormente Falsa. El reportero de PolitiFact Jeff Cercone y la investigadora Caryn Baird contribuyeron para este reportaje. Este reportaje originalmente fue escrito en inglés por Madison Czopek y traducido por Maria Ramirez Urib

"Peer-reviewed paper" shows "Fauci created COVID-19 More than two years since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and claimed the lives of more than a million Americans, an Instagram video claims new research shows the entire thing was created by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert. "Fauci created COVID," reads the chyron in a video clip that appeared in a Oct. 24 Instagram post. The video shows far-right talk show host Stew Peters. The post’s text caption says, "Peer-reviewed paper has vindicated what we have been saying. It was a man-made Bioweapon, NOT a ‘respiratory virus.’" The post was flagged by Meta as part of the platform’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The video clip comes from the Oct. 24 episode of Peters’ show, which was shared on the show’s Instagram page. Peters has a track record of perpetuating COVID-19 conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine rhetoric. In the original video, Peters pointed to a recently published preprint of an academic study as his source. Though Peters repeated the claim that it has been "peer-reviewed," preprint means it has not undergone peer-review. At the top of the website, where the paper was posted Oct. 20, a note reads, "bioRxiv posts many COVID19-related papers. A reminder: they have not been formally peer-reviewed and should not guide health-related behavior or be reported in the press as conclusive." The paper, titled "Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2" was authored by Alex Washburne, who founded Selva, which he describes on his LinkedIn page as a microbiome science innovation startup in New York City; Antonius VanDongen, a Duke University associate professor in pharmacology; and German scientist Valentin Bruttel, who specializes in molecular immunology at the University of Würzburg. The researchers wrote that they used a method called in-vitro genome assembly and noticed a pattern that they believe indicated "a fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses." "Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses," the paper said. "Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2." The preprint does not mention Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 The paper has been subject to criticism from many in the scientific community. "There are many kinds of 'wrong' in science, but this preprint is False," wrote Alex Crits-Christoph, a microbiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, at the top of a Twitter thread that laid out what he viewed as the study’s flawed analysis. The research laid out in the paper did not back its conclusion, Crits-Christoph said. Hassan Vally, an associate professor in epidemiology at Deakin University, told Newsweek the paper was not logically sound. "There seems to be flaws in the logic of this paper in terms of why one would stitch a whole genome together piece by piece to manufacture a virus," Vally said. "This to me makes no sense. If you were doing what the authors are purporting happened, you would insert small amounts of manufactured genetic material into a largely intact virus genome and there would be no need to piece together a genome in small segments. This doesn't make sense and points to a fundamental flaw in this paper and the logic behind the interpretation." Two of the preprint’s authors, Washburne and VanDongen, have pushed the theory that the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China, The Economist reported. Scientists for more than two years have been debating and researching SARS-CoV-2’s origin. Two extensive studies released in February presented detailed evidence suggesting the virus that causes COVID-19 in humans did not originate in a lab but at a seafood market in Wuhan, China in late 2019. An interim report released Oct. 27 by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Minority oversight staff, concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic was "more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident." Our ruling An Instagram post and video claimed that a "peer-reviewed" study found that Fauci created COVID-19. The paper cited as evidence is a non-peer-reviewed paper that suggests the virus could have been synthetic in its origin. It does not mention Fauci and has been criticized as employing flawed logic and analysis. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! Update, Oct 29, 2022: This fact-check has been updated to include mention of an interim report into SARS-CoV-2 origins that was released by a U.S. Senate committee as this fact-check was publishe

Mailing in a ballot “gives the bad guys a chance to know how many ballots they need to make. With early voting underway in several states ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections, misinformation about voting methods continues to spread on social media. A video shared Oct. 23 on Instagram assails the security of mail-in ballots in Washington state. In the video, a woman lists three things voters must do to secure their votes — one of which is not to mail in their ballot. Mailing a ballot "gives the bad guys a chance to know how many ballots they need to make," the woman says in a stage whisper. In the video’s caption, the woman cites far-right commentator Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary "2000 mules" to back up her claim of voter fraud through mail-in ballots. The movie makes the baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen through fraud, including fake absentee ballots. Several media organizations, including PolitiFact, found the movie lacked evidence of widespread voter fraud, and experts said D’Souza’s evidence is inherently flawed. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) A Washington election official told PolitiFact the woman’s claim is false. The Instagram video follows a general theme of questioning the security of vote-by-mail ballots that has gained prominence in the last several years among conservative groups. Charlie Boisner, external affairs director for the Washington Secretary of State’s Office, said voter fraud hasn’t been a widespread issue in the state. Occasionally one or two incidents may happen that involve fraud, but those are "dealt with in a pretty quick fashion." "We have systems and security measures in place to be able to identify if people have voted more than once or if they’re ineligible to vote," Boisner said. "As far as widespread voter fraud is concerned, especially with mail-in ballots, we haven’t seen anything that’s been substantiated or proven." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 8, 2022 in a Facebook post There’s “evidence of a massive transfer of completed, curated ballots” that are fraudulent in the 2022 election. By Ciara O'Rourke • October 11, 2022 Vote-by-mail was introduced in Washington in 1983 for special elections; in 2005, the state allowed individual counties to hold elections completely by mail. Vote-by-mail was eventually adopted statewide in 2011. People also can still cast their ballots in person at designated voting centers. Boisner said ballots sent through the mail are processed separately from regular mail. Election officials communicate regularly with the U.S. Postal Service to ensure that processing goes smoothly and the ballots are quickly sent to election officials for counting. "We’ve developed over the course of time the infrastructure to support this and the procedures to help navigate ballots going through the mail," he said. "I would say vote-by-mail is incredibly safe here in Washington." Each mail-in ballot is tied to a person’s voting record. If more than one ballot for a person is sent in to be counted, it will be flagged by election officials and the voter will be notified, Boisner said. Our ruling An Instagram video says mailing in a ballot "gives the bad guys a chance to know how many ballots they need to make." A Washington election official said the claim is false and there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state. If election officials receive more than one ballot from a voter, the ballot gets flagged and that voter is contacted to resolve any issues. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! RELATED: All of our fact-checks about voting and election

“Ukraine has a nuclear bomb primed in Mykolaiv. Since invading Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is going to detonate a nuclear bomb on its own territory. The most recent example came Oct. 23, when Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu called his counterparts in the United States, the United Kingdom and France to say that Ukraine is preparing a "provocation" with a radiological device known as a "dirty bomb." "Dirty bombs" use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material, according to a fact sheet by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They are easier to make and considerably less deadly than nuclear weapons, but they can contaminate targeted areas with radioactive particles and cause panic. Similar allegations have circulated on social media. An Oct. 21 Instagram post included footage from a Russian TV show and featured text saying, "Today on Russian TV. Ukraine has a nuclear bomb primed in Mykolaiv which it will detonate and then blame on Russia so that the US has a justification for getting directly involved in the war and launching missiles on Russia." The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Instagram post’s text and the footage match an Oct. 19 tweet by BBC Monitoring journalist Francis Scarr, who summarized in English what was said in Russian in the TV clip. A BBC spokesperson said Scarr "reports on the output of Russian TV" and that the tweet "reported a statement made on Russian state-controlled TV, and attributed the statement to that source." The spokesperson noted that "BBC Monitoring’s activities include investigating and exposing disinformation." Contrary to Russia’s repeated claims, Ukraine has neither a nuclear bomb nor a "dirty bomb," according to experts and watchdogs. The country used to have Soviet-era nuclear weapons but returned them to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine also dismantled or destroyed its nuclear missiles and silos. Its nuclear materials are now used for peaceful purposes, such as academic research and nuclear forensics. Nine countries in the world are known to have nuclear bombs: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, according to a January 2022 fact sheet by the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan organization in Washington, D.C., that promotes arms control. The Soviet military kept nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory during the Cold War, according to a June 2022 fact sheet by the U.S. Defense Department. But after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, Ukraine signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and transferred the weapons to Russia by 1996. Ukraine also dismantled its nuclear missiles and destroyed its nuclear missile silos. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 According to the fact sheet, the small quantity of highly enriched uranium still present in Ukraine "is intended for specific scientific purposes" and "is well below the amount needed to produce a nuclear device." Ukraine does not have "uranium enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing capabilities" nor "substantial quantities of separated plutonium." Pavel Podvig, an expert in the nuclear forces of Russia and former Soviet states, told PolitiFact that the claim that Ukraine still has nuclear weapons is "completely false." The country has not tried to develop them before or after the start of the invasion, Podvig said, and "there is absolutely no evidence that Ukraine has ever worked on a ‘dirty bomb.’" Russian ambassador Dimitry Polyanskiy said Oct. 25 that the Kremlin had "intelligence information" suggesting that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy had ordered the construction of a "dirty bomb," but he provided no evidence to back the claim. Russia mentioned two specific nuclear sites in its accusations, but the International Atomic Energy Agency said Oct. 24 that its inspectors have visited those sites regularly. The agency also said it inspected one of the sites one month ago and found "no undeclared nuclear activities or material." The agency has repeatedly certified that all nuclear materials in Ukraine are meant for peaceful applications, according to Podvig. Governments speak out The foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom and France issued a joint statement Oct. 23 rejecting what it called "transparently false allegations" from Shoigu, the Russian defense minister. Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Twitter that his country is a committed member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and neither has nor plans to acquire "dirty bombs." He added that Shoigu’s claims "are as absurd as they are dangerous." But Russian officials continue to repeat Shoigu’s claim about a "dirty bomb" in recent days. On Oct. 24, Russia’s army chief Valery Gerasimov repeated the claim in phone calls to NATO nations. On Oct. 25, Russian ambassadors made the allegation at the United Nations in a closed-door meeting of the Security Council. Following Shoigu’s claim, the Ukrainian president said, "If Russia calls and says that Ukraine is allegedly preparing something, it means one thing: Russia has already prepared all this." Echoing Zelenskyy’s statement, Ukraine’s foreign minister said that "Russians often accuse others of what they plan themselves." Our ruling An Instagram post says, "Ukraine has a nuclear bomb primed in Mykolaiv." Experts and watchdogs say Ukraine has neither a nuclear bomb nor a "dirty bomb." Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons but it transferred them to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed and dismantled or destroyed its nuclear missiles and silos. The nation’s nuclear materials are now used for peaceful purposes. We rate the post Fals

Video clips show staged war footage from Ukraine A recent Instagram post sharing a TikTok video issues a "wake up call," purportedly pointing to several clips as evidence that scenes of war in Ukraine have been staged. One of the clips shows a man grabbing his head while on his knees. A narrator calls him a Ukrainian soldier "in agony" before saying, "and cut," implying that the emotion has been faked for war propaganda. As another clip shows people filming a crowd running toward them, the narrator says: "Here we go, this is my favorite. And action. Okay, you’re all running, you’re all scared…Run, you’re terrified, you're terrified of incoming attacks from Russia." A man then appears on camera and eventually says: "You’re watching a f------ movie." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 Using reverse image searches and InVid, a site that helps identify the origins of video clips, we found the ones featured in the Instagram post, and neither is meant to show real footage of the war in Ukraine. RELATED VIDEO The first, of the man grabbing his head, is behind-the-scenes footage of a music video for the song "Lullaby" by Ukrainian singer Anna Khanina. The second clip wasn’t even filmed in Ukraine, or this year. It’s behind-the-scenes footage of filming in Birmingham, England, of the 2019 sci-fi movie "Invasion Planet Earth." Its director, Simon Cox, tweeted in March that he "was shocked" to see the footage being misused as misinformation about the war. These aren’t the only clips being misused as war propaganda. We’ve previously debunked posts that said video games show actual Ukrainian victories in the war, and that footage from a short video by a German TV network shows a downed Russian aircraft in the invasion. Those claims were wrong, and so is this one. We rate the claim that these clips show fake war footage in Ukraine Pants on Fir

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $200 million for digital IDs as part of a shift toward a “totalitarian society. Wild claims about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are nothing novel on the internet — PolitiFact has checked several in the past. In a new claim shared on Facebook, conservative commentator and radio host Dan Bongino says the foundation and half of its namesake, Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates, have dedicated $200 million toward international digital IDs as part of a shift toward a "totalitarian society." The video is a snippet from Bongino’s radio show that aired Oct. 11. "I have been warning over and over and over and over about this. We are looking at a surveillance future," Bongino said. He says digital IDs are a move toward the establishment of a "totalitarian society" because they enable a government to track a person’s every movement and have a complete record of someone’s life. The video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.). A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spokesperson told PolitiFact that Bongino’s claims misrepresent a financial commitment the organization made to build digital public infrastructure in developing nations. The foundation said in September 2022 that it was working with several governments, philanthropic foundations and nongovernmental organizations to commit $1.27 billion toward several global health and development initiatives. The commitments include $912 million toward fighting AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; $50 million toward health scholarships; and $100 million toward addressing food crises in Africa and South Asia. The Gates Foundation said $200 million of the money is earmarked for digital public infrastructure that will help developing nations address food and health crises through several types of technologies, not just digital IDs. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 The infrastructure includes tools such as interoperable payment systems, digital ID, data exchange systems and databases of records such as birth and death certificates, a foundation spokesperson said in an email. No specific amount has been allocated to such individual components as digital ID, the spokesperson added. We contacted Bongino for comment but did not receive a reply. A digital ID is a form of electronic identification that lets people identify themselves through an internet or mobile network connection, according to the ID2020, a nonprofit organization partially supported by Microsoft and the Gates Foundation-backed Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. One form of digital ID, a mobile driver's license, is already being used in Arizona. Several other states are preparing to implement or are considering mobile driver’s licenses, The Washington Post reported in 2021. The American Civil Liberties Union has outlined privacy and accessibility concerns about digital IDs but said they could be worthwhile if proper protections and third-party access limitations are in place. Digital IDs are still in their infancy, and ID2020 said a well-implemented ID program would ensure a person’s "rights to privacy, security and choice." Our ruling Bongino says the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $200 million for digital IDs as part of a shift toward a "totalitarian society." The foundation earmarked $200 million for building digital public infrastructure in developing nations, including data-sharing systems, databases for birth and death certificates and digital IDs. The foundation is not allocating a specific dollar amount for any one component of its commitment, a spokesperson said. We rate this claim False

Today’s high food prices were planned during a 2015 food shortage simulation When 65 researchers, policymakers and others from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C., in November 2015, they had a common goal — devise ways to ensure ready access to nutritious food, all around the world. In a two-day, role-playing simulation called "Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game," they explored how leaders, countries and private industry could best work together to respond to a future world food crisis. Now, with food prices climbing worldwide and supply hampered by the war in Ukraine, one social media user alleged the event was no simulation at all — and that participants had something far more sinister in mind. "Over the course of this weekend, they discussed how this food shortage would begin in 2020 and go through 2030, with food prices skyrocketing to over 400%. Think about that for a minute," a woman in an Oct. 12 Instagram video said. "Think about the record number of food plants being attacked — I’m sorry, accidents — of planes crashing into them, explosions," she continued. "None of this was planned though. Nothing was planned in a simulation in 2015, right? Something to think about." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The video grossly distorts the intent of the simulation, descriptions of which have been online for seven years. The only planning that happened was finding ways to best respond to a global food crisis. The video also falsely asserts that U.S. food plants are under attack, a claim we’ve tackled twice before. In 2015, teams from the U.S., the European Union, Brazil, China, continental Africa and India — as well as a team of multilateral organizations and a team of businesses and investors — gathered at the World Wildlife Fund headquarters in Washington for a role-playing exercise. The mission was seeing how participants would respond to a future simulated crisis beginning in 2020, when global food systems were threatened by population growth, rapid urbanization, extreme weather and political crises. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 13, 2022 in a post on Facebook If a sealed bag of raw poultry appears “puffy,” it means the protein is not safe to consume. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 14, 2022 The players "collaborated, negotiated, made decisions, and confronted trade-offs while dealing with the consequences of their actions between 2020 and 2030," according to the final report on their findings and recommendations. According to game designer CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, that time period was selected because it was "near enough to be familiar, but distant enough to allow players to focus beyond current policy debates." Throughout the game, participants had to respond to food production disruptions that led to rapid price increases, food shortages and civil unrest. The game was "designed to help high-level decision-makers better understand the interdependencies of food, climate, trade and political stability, and the cascading effects of collective and individual policy decisions," said the report. The report concluded that although there’s no single solution to food security issues, "proactive, cooperative and balanced approaches" are key to preventing future crises. According to the World Bank, the war in Ukraine has altered global patterns in trade, production and consumption that will keep prices high through the end of 2024. The prices have triggered a global crisis that is driving millions more people into extreme poverty, magnifying hunger and malnutrition, the World Bank said in an Oct. 17 update on food security. The U.S. is facing high food prices but not a food shortage, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nor are food production plants under attack, despite claims that have tried to turn routine fires, bird deaths from the avian flu and accidents into a conspiracy by an unnamed enemy to intentionally starve Americans. Our ruling An Instagram video claims that a 2015 food shortage simulation was actually an attempt to plan problems with food prices and security that are happening today. But that distorts the mission of the simulation, which had participants work together to solve a global food shortage, then pass what they’d learned to decision-makers. The simulation has nothing to do with current events affecting food prices and instability, and U.S. food plants are not under attack, as we’ve written before. We rate this claim Pants on Fir

“Eagles fans shout F— Joe Biden while Jill Biden attends NFL game! First lady Jill Biden, a longtime fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, attended one of the team’s games, dedicated to cancer awareness, on Oct. 16. A video circulating on social media showed her clapping and singing with others on the field — but it was hard to hear the lyrics over the crowd booing her husband. "Eagles fans shout F— Joe Biden while Jill Biden attends NFL game!" says the text on an Oct. 18 Instagram video that purported to show footage from the game. The video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) That’s because the video, which has spread across other platforms, such as YouTube, was altered to add the chants. The National Football League shared the real footage of Jill Biden at the game. She was singing the team’s "Fly, Eagles Fly" fight song, along with the crowd. Philly’s own @FLOTUS stands along cancer survivors to lead the “Fly Eagles Fly” fight song before #DALvsPHI. #CrucialCatch pic.twitter.com/21Zvq3shVf Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 — NFL (@NFL) October 17, 2022 Many commenters on the Instagram post thought the altered video was real. "She has (no) idea what they are saying. What a joke her and her brain missing husband...." one user wrote. Another said, "Here’s the thing . . . if she cared and wasn’t following a script or being endorsed, any normal human being would be furious and show it." The fact-checking team at Verify did an audio analysis of the video. The booing comes from an hourlong YouTube video, and footage of a crowd chanting an expletive about Biden is real, but it’s from a compilation of crowds chanting at different college football games. We rate the claim that Philadelphia Eagles fans were chanting expletives at Jill Biden Pants on Fire!

In Arizona, early voting would allow Kari Lake’s opponents to see how many votes they “need to fake to catch up and surpass. An Instagram video suggests that if Arizonans vote early, it will give Democrats insider intelligence on how many people have voted for Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and then scheme to generate votes to beat her, but that’s ridiculous. The Instagram user tells Arizonans to vote in person and not early or by mail. "When you vote early, I’m not making any accusations, but it does give the opposition the ability to say ‘Hmmm, looks like for example Kari Lake has 2 million early voters, how many voters would we need to fake to catch up to that and surpass it?’" says the Instagram video. The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Lake is running against her Democratic rival Katie Hobbs. The Instagram video doesn’t explain how Lake opponents would find these "fake" votes, but such a scheme is make-believe. It’s impossible to know how many ballots so far were cast for Lake Ballot return data shows who voted and what party they belong to, but it does not say for whom they voted, said Paul Bentz, who specializes in public opinion surveys at HighGround, a Phoenix consulting company. Data companies aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties show that about two weeks before Election Day, Democrats are ahead in ballot returns. But that still doesn’t tell us who is winning, partly because independents could end up accounting for about 1 in 4 ballots cast. Before former President Donald Trump cast doubt on voting by mail, Republicans dominated early returns in Arizona for nearly two decades. Republicans have shifted their behavior and more are voting or dropping off their ballots on Election Day, Bentz said. Election officials will begin to post results at 8 p.m. local time on election night, per Arizona law. Until then, we don’t know how many Arizonans voted for Lake. Claim ignores security procedures The idea that Lake’s opponents could somehow drum up "fake" votes to "catch up and surpass" Lake is an outlandish, criminal scheme. Featured Fact-check Tweets stated on November 8, 2022 in a tweet “There is no chain of custody” for ballots placed in Box No. 3 at Maricopa, Arizona, polling sites. By Jon Greenberg • November 8, 2022 Arizona state law requires that election officials take steps to ensure that voting is secure, including ballots cast by mail. Stephen Richer, the Maricopa County recorder and a Republican, said he has seen no evidence of "fake" ballots but that the notion is flawed. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, represents about 60% of Arizona’s voters. "Every vote has to have a corresponding registered voter," Richer said. "So you couldn’t just inject forged ballots into the tabulator. You’d first have to create fake voter profiles. That means you’d have to fool the Social Security Administration or motor vehicle division. You’d also have to forge the ballot (which has special design and formatting marks). You’d have to forge the bar code on the return envelope."Casting phony ballots is illegal — whether the ballots themselves were counterfeit, or cast illegitimately, for example, by someone who isn’t a registered voter. Democratic and Republican campaigns engage in get-out-the-vote efforts such as door knocking, calling and texting voters, spreading messages on social media or hosting rallies. But those strategies don’t amount to generating "fake" votes. The Instagram video is one of many social media posts nationwide this fall that urge voters to cast ballots in person on Election Day. This tactic is born out of the falsehood that voting by mail invites significant fraud. These falsehoods have lived on despite facts presented by Republican officials, including Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, defending the 2020 election’s security. The majority of Arizonans cast ballots by mail. Lake, a former Phoenix TV news anchor, is one of multiple candidates nationwide running on a platform of denying the reality that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. She has repeatedly said that the 2020 election was "stolen" and "corrupt," ignoring evidence in dozens of court cases and findings by national and state officials that the election was secure. Our ruling An Instagram video claimed that in Arizona, early voting would allow Lake’s opponents to see how many votes they "need to fake to catch up and surpass." This is an unrealistic fantasy for multiple reasons. We can see how many Democrats, Republicans and others have voted, but we don’t know how many voted for Lake or her opponent. Arizona election results will become available starting at 8 p.m. local time on election night. It’s unclear from the video how this scheme to drum up "fake" votes to surpass Lake would work. Election officials by law must follow security procedures that are designed to thwart any illegitimate votes. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Voting by mail has been popular in Arizona for decades. Now the state GOP wants to ban it RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Arizona RELATED: All of our fact-checks about election

Student loan forgiveness is “passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect. Just two months after he announced a new administration effort to forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 of student loan debt, President Joe Biden got key details of the plan wrong at a public event. Biden was speaking during a televised forum sponsored by Now This, a liberal online media outlet. Footage of the event, held at the White House, was posted online Oct. 23. At one point, the discussion turned to Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. As Biden explained it, "What we’ve provided for is, if you went to school, if you qualified for a Pell Grant … you qualify for $20,000 in debt forgiveness. Secondly, if you don’t have one of those loans, you just get $10,000 written off. It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect. And already a total of, I think it’s now 13 million people, have applied for that service." But there are two key problems with Biden’s statement: how the policy came to be and whether it’s "in effect." Biden didn’t go through Congress to pursue student debt relief. Technically, Biden didn’t issue an executive order, either. Rather, his administration drew on the HEROES Act, a law passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that allows relief from student loan payments during times of war or national emergency. The Donald Trump and Biden administrations repeatedly used the law to pause payments on student loans since the coronavirus pandemic — classified as a national emergency — started in early 2020. (Under Biden’s debt relief plan, that pause would end in January 2023.) In a legal opinion, Biden’s Education Department broke with the Trump-era department in advising that the same law could be used not only to pause payments, but also to forgive debt. Despite Biden’s comments, the plan did not pass Congress — by one vote, two votes or any other number of votes. Featured Fact-check Deidre DeJear stated on October 19, 2022 in a tweet "Kim Reynolds doesn’t think nurses are educated." By Liam Halawith • October 31, 2022 If Biden had chosen to enact his policy through congressional action, the second part of his statement — that the policy is "in effect" — might be accurate. For now, however, it’s not. Legal experts have long raised questions about whether the Supreme Court, particularly in its current ideological configuration, would permit such debt forgiveness based on administrative action, rather than by congressional consent. A majority of justices might be swayed by an argument that the Education Department is reading too much authority into the HEROES Act’s text, Ryan D. Doerfler, a Harvard University law professor, told PolitiFact in August. In several recent cases, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has opposed agencies’ interpretations of "sweeping or otherwise surprising grants of authority," he said. Biden’s plan is wending its way through the courts. The most recent action — by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 21 — put Biden’s plan on hold following a challenge by six Republican-led states. That’s not a final ruling by any stretch; the Supreme Court has already declined one opportunity to temporarily block a different lawsuit challenging the policy. Although more than 22 million loan recipients have signed up for relief so far through a government portal, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged in a statement after the appeals court ruling that the court’s action "prevents debt from being discharged until the court makes a decision." With the payouts to borrowers in limbo, it’s inaccurate to say the program is "in effect." And even if the appeals court hadn’t ruled to temporarily block the plan, the legal uncertainty surrounding the proposal means it would be premature to say the policy is "in effect." The White House told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, "which reduced the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, creating room for other crucial programs." That legislation — which included provisions that allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, impose higher taxes on the largest corporations and tackle climate change — passed the House and Senate on a party-line vote, without any Republican votes. An estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group advocating deficit relief, found that the debt cancellation plan as announced would cost $330 billion to $390 billion. Our ruling Biden said that student loan forgiveness is "passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect." He’s wrong on both counts. The plan didn’t pass Congress; he is seeking to implement it by administrative action. And although online applications are being processed, a court ruling is blocking the plan from proceeding. The long-term legal outlook for Biden’s plan is uncertain at best. We rate the statement Fals

Video shows paratroopers crashing in Uganda Parasailers swoop around a stadium and make an unforgettable landing in a video circulating on social media. Some drop unceremoniously into crowded stands. Another crashes into a portable toilet. "Paratroopers landed in #various undesired places as they tried to #showcase while marking the 60th independence day," a recent Instagram post sharing the video said. "#Uganda #paratroopers miss #target, land in #mobile #toilet, roof, into the crowd instead of landing on the field during the country’s 60th independence celebration." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 12, 2022 in a Facebook post “Trump woken up from his bed by police.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 14, 2022 Uganda did celebrate Independence Day on Oct. 9, marking 60 years since its independence from the British Empire in 1962. But this video doesn’t show a botched display by paratroopers there. Rather, the paratroopers were trying to land in José de la Paz Herrera Uclés stadium in Honduras for a celebration of the country’s 201st Independence Day on Sept. 15. Strong winds were blamed for blowing the paratroopers off course. We rate claims that this happened in Honduras False.

“Wikileaks releases moon landing cut scenes filmed in the Nevada desert. A TikTok video shows a series of clips of what looks like footage from space interspersed with scenes from film sets. "Wikileaks releases moon landing cut scenes filmed in the Nevada desert," reads text underneath the video, which was shared in an Oct. 23 Instagram post. A narrator refers to the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing and falsely suggests that it didn’t happen. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We emailed Wikileaks about the claim and didn’t hear back. But the site, which has published leaked government documents and tens of thousands of emails from the account of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager before the 2016 election, doesn’t appear to include the footage in the TikTok video. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 17, 2022 in an Instagram post There were two shooters in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. By Ciara O'Rourke • October 20, 2022 We searched the Wikileaks website for results including the words "moon," "landing" and "Nevada" and found zero results. USA Today fact-checked a similar post and found the video features behind-the-scenes footage of "Capricorn One," a fictional 1977 movie about faking a mission to Mars after the first manned flight is scrapped. According to IMDb, the Mojave Desert in California, and Yuma, Arizona, were among the filming locations. It didn’t mention Nevada. The video in the post also uses authentic clips from the Apollo 11 moonwalk, weaving reality with movie magic in a way that seems intended to mislead viewers into believing that the historic space mission didn’t happen. That’s wrong. We rate this post False.

“Nancy Pelosi (purchased) 10,000 shares of Amgen, manufacturer of Nplate, a drug used to treat radiation sickness. Following a U.S. government purchase of radiation sickness medication, some on social media are claiming that the House speaker could be profiting from the transaction. One post, shared Oct. 12 on Instagram, showed a screenshot of a tweet that said, "BREAKING Nancy Pelosi purchases 10,000 shares of Amgen, manufacturer of Nplate, a drug used to treat radiation sickness." The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it spent $290 million on Nplate, a drug manufactured by Amgen to treat radiation sickness. The department said the purchase was part of long-standing efforts to prepare the country for potential health impacts from threats to national security. Experts said the purchase was not a cause for alarm. PolitiFact found no evidence that Pelosi, D-Calif., has purchased stock in Amgen. The speaker’s required financial disclosures show no record of the purchase, and Pelosi’s staff said the claim is false. Under the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress are required to file periodic transaction reports for every purchase, sale or exchange of stocks or other securities when the transaction exceeds $1,000. (The requirement also covers transactions by a lawmaker’s spouse and dependent children.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 14, 2022 in an Instagram post Video footage showing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hiding on Jan. 6, 2021, shows the U.S. Capitol attack “was a setup.” By Madison Czopek • October 17, 2022 The reports must be filed within 30 days of when the member was notified of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction. Only a range of the value of a transaction must be disclosed. Pelosi herself does not own any stocks, the speaker’s deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, told PolitiFact. Past financial disclosures filed by Pelosi show transactions by her husband, Paul Pelosi. However, no reports since at least 2007 show either Pelosi or her husband purchasing shares of Amgen. Pelosi and her husband have not been involved in any stock transactions involving Amgen in the last 30 to 45 days, before a disclosure report could be filed, Hammill said. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed Pelosi purchased "10,000 shares of Amgen, manufacturer of Nplate, a drug used to treat radiation sickness." Financial disclosures show no record of such a purchase by Pelosi or her husband. Her staff said the claim is untrue. We rate this claim Fals

"When electric cars get in accidents, they explode, they catch fire very very badly because of the lithium batteries. An Instagram video uses fearmongering and unrelated footage to inaccurately describe what happens to electric vehicles when they get into crashes. "When electric cars get in accidents, they explode, they catch fire very, very badly because of the lithium batteries," says a man in the video, which was posted Oct. 20 on Instagram. The man says "you can do experiments yourself, just get a lithium battery and unwrap it and throw it into a bowl and see what happens." A narrator then does just that, but with a double-A lithium battery, not an electric vehicle battery. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Electric vehicles are overall less likely than gas-powered cars to combust or explode after a collision, according to data and experts. There are more gas-powered cars on the road than EVs, so a good way to analyze their relative safety is fires per distance driven. Tesla, which makes more than half of the electric vehicles sold in the U.S., reports five car fires per billion miles driven, compared with 55 fires per billion miles driven in gas-powered cars. "An electric car can get into an accident without any explosion or fire, like gasoline cars," said Ahmad Pesaran, chief energy storage engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in an email interview with PolitiFact. "An accident has to be very severe to compromise the battery pack in a way to rupture the cells and create an internal short which may lead to a fire," Pesaran said. "Because of the construction of the battery pack and the strong enclosure around it, this is very rare." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 As for the video showing the deconstruction of a double-A lithium battery, Pesaran notes that EVs don’t use lithium batteries, but the much safer lithium-ion batteries. He said the potential for danger isn’t as severe as the video implies. It’s also important to consider the relative risk of electric vehicles compared with gas-powered vehicles, Pesaran said. "There are more than 200,000 fires in gasoline vehicles each year in the U.S., but for some reason, they are not put under the magnifying glass with inaccurate information like those for electric vehicles," he said. That said, some specific models of electric cars have had fire risks. In 2021, General Motors Co. recalled the Chevrolet Bolt because of a risk of its battery pack catching fire. Our ruling An Instagram post says, "When electric cars get in accidents, they explode, they catch fire very very badly because of the lithium batteries." Electric vehicles are not more likely than gas-powered cars to catch fire in crashes. Tesla, which makes more than half of the electric vehicles sold in the U.S., reports five car fires per billion miles driven, compared with 55 fires per billion miles driven in gas-powered cars. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Electric vehicle fires can be extinguished with wat

For climate change environmentalists, “not a single one of their predictions ever come true. A conservative commentator made the unfounded claim that climate scientists are always wrong in their predictions. For climate change environmentalists, "not a single one of their predictions ever come true," said Charlie Kirk, founder and president of the conservative group Turning Point USA, in a clip from his show posted Oct. 3 on Instagram. Kirk compared climate science to religion and described climate change environmentalists as "the pagans." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) However, we found several instances of climate change predictions, including those going back to the 1970s, that closely matched what came to pass. Kirk did not respond to a request for comment. It isn’t uncommon for climate skeptics to claim climate predictions have been wrong. Many climate change predictions are based on modeling, which involves putting data into a computer program and having the program make predictions. It’s not a perfect science, as it’s difficult to account for all the relevant data about an entire planet. One way to determine a model’s accuracy is to look at old models and see how well they withstood the test of time. A 2019 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters showed that of 17 climate models published from 1970 to 2007, 10 closely matched the global average temperatures that occurred. That number increased to 14 after "accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate," according to a 2020 NASA article about the study. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 17, 2022 in a video Video shows “California sets their own forest fires and claims them as climate change effects.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 20, 2022 Another 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that 1990 predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were fairly accurate. IPCC had suggested that by 2030, Earth would have warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius, which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius. Despite the difference in the projected and actual temperatures, the 1990 prediction is accurate, Penny Whetton, senior principal research scientist at the Australian government agency Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, told the nonprofit news website The Conversation in 2012. The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations, Whetton said. "This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true," she added. Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has noted that plenty of climate predictions have come true. For example, in a 2021 opinion column, he pointed to the Nobel prize-winning Suki Manabe, who in 1967 correctly predicted surface warming and stratospheric cooling. And since its 1990 prediction, the IPCC has continued to make predictions that end up being close to real, observed temperatures. Schmidt said in an email interview with PolitiFact that Kirk’s "summary of the success of climate modeling is simply wrong." Schmidt said there are always examples of sensationalized predictions in the scientific community, but Kirk was "clearly implying something about the mainstream scientific community, not unsupported outliers." Our Ruling Kirk says for climate change environmentalists, "not a single one of their predictions ever come true." The claim is not supported by evidence. Many climate predictions have come true, including those from government agencies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which made climate predictions that closely matched observed changes in climate. We rate this claim Fals

“More than half of the $739 billion tax increase (in the Inflation Reduction Act) will go to wasteful Green New Deal programs like tree equity, 'clean' garbage trucks, and studying cow farts. As the most conservative Democrat serving in the Senate — and as a senator representing West Virginia, a state that supported Donald Trump in 2020 by almost 39 percentage points — Joe Manchin has stoked critics on both the right and the left. For months, Manchin balked at supporting President Joe Biden’s climate change agenda, irritating many of his fellow Democrats. But then, this past summer, quiet negotiations between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., produced a breakthrough, enabling Manchin to support what became the Inflation Reduction Act. The legislation included provisions that allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, impose higher taxes on the largest corporations and tackle climate change. The measure included tax credits for cutting carbon emissions from electricity, vehicles and manufacturing operations. The bill passed the House and Senate on party-line votes before Biden signed it into law. Suddenly, Manchin’s role in enabling the bill’s enactment prompted criticism from conservatives. One of the groups criticizing Manchin was Citizens Against Government Waste, which advocates for "the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government." Officially, the group is nonpartisan, but its focus on cutting federal spending tends to align with Republican policies. In its 2021 congressional vote ratings, House and Senate Republicans scored vastly better than House and Senate Democrats did. After the Inflation Reduction Act passed, the group named Manchin its "porker of the month" for enabling "pork-barrel" spending. It bought space on Facebook to run an animated ad in which it criticizes Manchin’s vote. ("Pork" or "pork barrel" spending is government spending for localized projects secured primarily or solely for bringing money to political representatives’ districts.) Part of the ad said, "More than half of the $739 billion tax increase will go to wasteful Green New Deal programs like tree equity, 'clean' garbage trucks, and studying cow farts." (Screenshot) The $739 billion refers to the revenue raised as part of the bill, mostly from tax hikes on the biggest corporations and from federal spending saved by Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices. Because a portion comes from saved spending, it’s not accurate to call the entire $739 billion a "tax increase," as the ad does. The tax portion of the revenue increase is about $457 billion. Meanwhile, the Green New Deal refers to a far-reaching environmental proposal by progressive Democrats in 2019 that did not make it into legislative form and was never voted on. Half of the stated $739 billion in new revenue would work out to about $370 billion. So, would provisions on "tree equity, 'clean' garbage trucks, and studying cow farts" cost that much? We decided to find out. Citizens Against Government Waste did not respond to inquiries for this article. All told, the legislation would spend $391 billion on climate and energy, according to an analysis of the bill’s revenue and spending provisions by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonprofit focused on raising awareness about the United States’ future fiscal challenges. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 30, 2022 in a photo “There are no greenhouse gas emissions in this photo” of cows grazing. By Kristin Hugo • November 7, 2022 So, more than half of the new revenue raised would go toward environmental and clean energy uses, broadly defined. But the ad’s focus on "tree equity, ‘clean’ garbage trucks, and studying cow farts" cherry-picks a relatively small (and, to some, silly-sounding) portion of that amount. The bill does include elements that address these topics, but they are only a small fraction of the total amount being spent. Tree equity Although the legislation doesn’t use the term "tree equity," it does include a notable investment in tree planting in urban areas, especially those with relatively few trees. The idea is to "help cities plant more trees in the places where they're needed most," Jad Daley, president and CEO of the environmental advocacy group American Forests, told PolitiFact. Greater tree cover is designed to reduce heat-related deaths, remove carbon from the atmosphere and lower cooling bills, especially in cities. The new law allocates $1.5 billion to the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry program, which averages to $150 million a year over the bill's 10-year life. That’s a substantial cash infusion for the program, which has been funded at around $30 million to $40 million per year for the past few years, Matt Spitsen, program development manager for the Arbor Day Foundation, a nonprofit group devoted to planting trees, told PolitiFact in August. "Clean" garbage trucks The bill includes $600 million over 10 years for grants to allow states, municipalities, Indian tribes or school transportation associations to replace conventional heavy vehicles with zero-emission vehicles. This extends beyond garbage trucks and could cover many other types of heavy-duty vehicles, said Sylvia Chi, an environmental and economic justice attorney with Just Solutions Collective in Oakland, California. Cow farts Methane contributes to climate change, and by some estimates, cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. (Technically, methane comes mostly from cow burps, not farts.) As a result, environmentalists have sought to curb its atmospheric release. The only provision of the legislation that specifically addresses "enteric methane emissions from ruminants" comes under the heading of agricultural conservation. The legislation allocates almost $8.5 billion for all types of conservation over four years, with the agriculture secretary "prioritizing proposals that utilize diet and feed management to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants." In all likelihood, cattle-related projects would account for a small fraction of that $8.5 billion. However, even assuming that 100 percent of that sum goes to fund cow-fart projects, the total for tree planting, "clean" garbage trucks and cattle emissions would amount to $10.6 billion, or 1.4% of the $739 billion in new revenue — not "more than half." And if only 10% of the conservation grants went to cattle projects, that would make the total for the three categories a little less than $3 billion, or less than half of 1% of the $739 billion in revenue raised. Our ruling The Citizens Against Government Waste ad said, "More than half of the $739 billion tax increase (in the Inflation Reduction Act) will go to wasteful Green New Deal programs like tree equity, 'clean' garbage trucks, and studying cow farts." First, calling the $739 billion a tax increase is exaggerated. Not counting federal health care savings that are counted as revenue, the tax increase’s scale is about $457 billion. The bill’s environmental provisions do add up to $391 billion, or more than half of $739 billion. However, the amount spent on trees, clean trucks and cattle emissions account for a tiny fraction of that, somewhere between one-half of 1% and 1.4%. We rate the statement Mostly Fals

The diphtheria vaccine is a “poison dart” with side effects worse than the symptoms of diphtheria As advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated the recommended childhood immunization schedule to include the COVID-19 vaccine, an Instagram post claimed that one of the already recommended vaccines does more harm than good. An Instagram user shared a series of slides Oct. 19 about the bacterial infection diphtheria, comparing its symptoms with supposed adverse reactions to the DTaP vaccine used to prevent it. "I want everyone to know about poison darts so help me get it out to everyone!" the post’s caption said. The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Diphtheria is a bacterial infection that mainly affects children, attacking their cardiovascular, urinary and nervous systems. It was a common cause of death in children in the U.S. during the 1920s and until the first vaccine to prevent it was introduced to the country in the 1940s. The shot helped prevent tetanus and whooping cough in addition to diphtheria and was a precursor to the modern DTaP vaccine. Although complications from diphtheria can damage the heart muscle and nerves, cause kidney failure, and — in 1 in 10 cases — death, the post misleadingly portrays the adverse reactions of the vaccine as more severe. The post makes the unfounded claim that side effects from the vaccine can include coma, epilepsy and death. The post also frames diphtheria infections as incredibly rare, which is misleading. The reason the infections are rare is because the vaccine has almost completely eradicated the illness. The post doesn’t provide a source for its information, but it appears to have taken some of its text word-for-word from the National Vaccine Information Center's web page about diphtheria and the DTaP vaccine. The National Vaccine Information Center is an antivaccination advocacy group that has promoted vaccine misinformation. The DTaP vaccine has been found to be safe and effective for use in children, and the CDC said the risk of developing a serious adverse reaction after receiving it is rare. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 12, 2022 in a Facebook post “Trump woken up from his bed by police.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 14, 2022 The most common reactions from a DTaP vaccination include soreness or swelling at the injection site, irritability and loss of appetite. Those side effects are considered mild and eventually go away on their own. As with any medicine, the CDC said the vaccine does have a small chance of causing an adverse reaction such as anaphylaxis, which can lead to death. The Instagram post says, "‘Fun’ fact: The last confirmed case in the U.S. was in 2003, with approximately 0 to 5 cases occurring per 100,000 individuals in the U.S. since 1980." What the post doesn’t say is that the reason for that is widespread vaccination. The CDC said diphtheria cases averaged less than one per year by the 1990s. Vaccination coverage for diphtheria is consistently high in the U.S., and around 93% of children received three out of the four recommended doses of the DTaP vaccine by the time they were 24 months old. The World Health Organization found that drops in immunization rates in other parts of the world resulted in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infections and diseases like diphtheria and measles. The current DTaP vaccine replaced the DTwP vaccine in the U.S. and in other developed nations during the mid-1990s as it had fewer reported adverse effects. Our ruling An Instagram post says the diphtheria vaccine is a "poison dart," with side effects worse than the symptoms of diphtheria. The diphtheria vaccine is safe and effective, and its widespread use has nearly eradicated the illness in the United States. Side effects from the vaccine are typically minor, and serious adverse reactions are rare. Diphtheria was a leading cause of death among children in the U.S. in the 1920s, and complications from it can cause damage to the heart muscle, nerve damage, kidney failure and death. We rate this claim Fals

Bodybuilder died from the COVID-19 vaccine When bodybuilder and fitness expert Doug Brignole got vaccinated against COVID-19, he shared it on social media and urged his followers to join him. "We're all in this together, so let's do our share to beat it," Brignole wrote in an April 4, 2021, Facebook post. He added in a comment on his post: "I have enough confidence in the vaccine, based on my research, to get it done. Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test. If I die, you were right." Eighteen months later, Brignole died Oct. 13 at age 62. Now that comment is being used by some social media users to speculate without evidence that he died as a result of the vaccine. "By your own statement we were right and sadly, you were wrong," read an Oct. 17 Instagram post. "And it cost you your life." We found numerous social media posts sharing Brignole’s comment and news of his passing to attempt to connect the two. The cause of death wasn’t immediately known when people made these initial posts that suggested, without evidence, that the vaccine was at fault. A medical examiner has since found that Brignole died from a COVID-19 infection, not from the vaccine. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Before he died, Brignole, a two-time American Athletic Union Mr. Universe winner, was training to guest pose at an Oct. 22 Amateur Athletic Union event in Las Vegas. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner’s report listed Brignole’s cause of death as a COVID-19 infection and named atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease a significant condition. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a hardening and narrowing of the arteries caused by cholesterol. It contributed to Brignole’s death, but wasn’t an underlying cause, said Sarah Ardalani, a spokesperson for the medical examiner-coroner. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines breakthrough infections as when someone with a primary series of vaccines only or with an added booster shot gets infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. Such infections were rare in COVID-19’s early days, but have become increasingly common as the virus has mutated. According to CDC data, people who are vaccinated have a much greater chance of surviving a COVID-19 infection than those who are not vaccinated. Through Aug. 28, people 6 months or older who have received at least a primary series of vaccines have a death rate of 0.25 per 100,000 people. Unvaccinated Americans had a 1.51 death rate, meaning they were more than six times more likely to die, the CDC said. Those in Brignole’s age group who received the primary series of vaccines — ages 50 to 64 — had a death rate of 0.14 per 100,000 people. It’s not clear whether Brignole had received any booster shots since his initial vaccination in April 2021. We could find no social media posts from him about the subject since then. A friend started a GoFundMe to help cover his funeral expenses; it mentioned nothing about vaccines or what led to his passing. Martin Drake, the Amateur Athletic Union strength sports national chair, said he couldn't comment on Brignole's health specifically, but called the idea that people are dying from vaccines "silly conspiracy theory concepts (that) are not only patently ridiculous, but are an insult to somebody who has suffered a loss." A recent study of more than 100,000 vaccinated veterans showed that the risk of getting a severe COVID-19 infection after being vaccinated increases with age. "Increasing age was most strongly associated with severe disease, with risk increasing steadily among patients older than 50 years," the study’s authors wrote. Our ruling An Instagram post linked the death of a well-known bodybuilder to the COVID-19 vaccine. A coroner’s report listed his cause of death as a COVID-19 infection. We rate this claim Fals

A chyron on Sean Hannity’s show said, “Dr Oz admits he’s a medical quack. Fox News host Sean Hannity has endorsed Dr. Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania Senate race, so it doesn’t quite track that he would air a chyron claiming that Oz disparaged himself. "Dr Oz admits he’s a medical quack," the chyron says in an image of what looks like a photo of a "Hannity" broadcast on Fox News. An Instagram post sharing this image was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Connor Smith, a Fox spokesperson, told us that the chyron isn’t authentic and didn’t air on "Hannity." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 10, 2022 in a post “Premature babies are at a much higher risk of injury from immunizations than full-term babies.” By Andy Nguyen • October 13, 2022 Searching online for the chyron, we found no results. Searching for news coverage or other reports involving the words "Oz," "Hannity," and "medical quack," we found nothing suggesting that Oz claimed this, or that Hannity reported it. Rather, the results show people leaving comments on news articles or in forums calling the celebrity TV doctor-turned-Republican Senate nominee a quack. The Patriot-News in Pennsylvania reported Oct. 19 that Hannity visited York, Pennsylvania, that day for a town hall that "essentially was a campaign rally" for Oz. The image in the Instagram post comes from this town hall broadcast. The actual chyrons said "Hannity town hall from York, Pennsylvania" and "Dr. Mehmet Oz Republican U.S. Senate nominee in Pennsylvania." Oz, a Republican, is running against Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman in the Nov. 8 general election. The pair will meet for an Oct. 25 debate. We rate claims that Hannity aired a chyron saying Oz called himself a quack Pants on Fire!

A CNN headline shows Uganda’s president saying he doesn’t support Ukraine because it would be “disgusting. Lt. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, came out as an early supporter of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, tweeting in February that the "majority of mankind (that are non-white) support Russia’s stand in Ukraine." In March, Uganda was among 17 African countries that abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution condemning the invasion. In July, Museveni said he didn’t see a reason to criticize Russia over the war and celebrated the Russian-Ugandan relationship during a diplomatic meeting in Uganda. But we found no evidence that CNN ran a photo of Museveni with a headline that said "Of course I DO NOT support Ukraine, that would be ‘disgusting.’" An Instagram post sharing what looks like a screenshot of such a headline was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Matt Dornic, a spokesperson for CNN, told PolitiFact that the image in the Instagram post isn’t an image of a real CNN story. "It is fake," Dornic said. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 17, 2022 in una publicación en Facebook "Ministros de Defensa de OTAN deciden invadir a RUSIA para prevenir ataque de Putin”. By Maria Ramirez Uribe • October 17, 2022 We also didn’t find it on CNN’s website. The post appears to be an altered screenshot of a 2014 story on CNN’s website. The story features a paused video of Museveni in which he appears wearing the same outfit and in front of the same background as the image of him in the Instagram post. RELATED VIDEO The headline of this story: "Uganda president: ‘Homosexuals are ‘disgusting.’" At the time, Museveni was talking to CNN about anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda. We found no credible news reports or other sources documenting Museveni as saying it would be disgusting to support Ukraine. We rate that claim False.

Ted Budd “on four separate occasions voted against funding for police here in North Carolina to the tune of more than $32 million. The Democratic candidate for North Carolina’s open U.S. Senate seat says her Republican opponent doesn’t follow through on promises to support the police. Cheri Beasley, a former state Supreme Court chief justice, is running against Republican U.S. Rep. Ted Budd for the seat that will soon be vacated by retiring Sen. Richard Burr. In a debate hosted by Spectrum News on Oct. 7, Budd accused Beasley of being soft on crime. Beasley fired back: "Congressman Budd, who talks about being a friend of the police, on four separate occasions voted against funding for police here in North Carolina to the tune of more than $32 million." Did Budd really vote against bills that provided funding to North Carolina law enforcement agencies? Not exactly. Beasley’s campaign cited Budd’s vote against several appropriations bills that fund federal government operations for the coming fiscal year. It’s fair to point out that the bills ultimately benefited North Carolina law enforcement agencies. However, Beasley’s claim is misleading in multiple ways: Her math was off. By her own campaign’s count, state agencies received $32 million — not across four appropriations bills, but five. The bills were massive. The bills directed money to numerous federal projects and agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice. The department then awarded money to North Carolina law enforcement agencies through three separate grant programs during those four fiscal years. Budd says he opposed the bills for reasons unrelated to North Carolina’s law-enforcement funding, which accounted for a small fraction of each bill’s total spending. Beasley’s claim is similar to others that cherry-pick small details out of large spending bills to make a misleading point. "It’s a classic D.C. parlor game of trying to force members to vote for something 95% bad just to get the 5% good, and Ted does not play that game," Jonathan Felts, Budd’s senior adviser, said in an email. Budd opposed the bills because their price tags were too big or because they didn’t do enough to secure the border, Felts said. "Ted has always been very transparent that he opposes running up the federal debt, no matter if it’s a Republican president or a Democrat president," he said. Law enforcement — and a lot more The Beasley campaign cited Budd’s opposition to bills enacted for fiscal years ending in 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017. The bills, each signed by then-President Donald Trump, featured different top-line spending items and enjoyed varying levels of support from Congress. Funding for police officers is primarily done locally, not through Congress. Federal lawmakers do, however, set budgets for programs that offer grants to local government agencies — and that’s what the Beasley campaign is citing here. Each of the bills funded the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program, the leading federal source of criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. North Carolina’s Department of Public Safety also received funds through the DOJ’s Anti-Heroin Task Force, which finances investigations into the unlawful opioid distributions, as well as its Anti-Methamphetamine Program, which provides financial assistance to law enforcement agencies in states with high rates of methamphetamine seizures. The Justice Department’s Award Announcement Map webpage allows users to search for grants issued to North Carolina through the anti-heroin and anti-meth programs. Featured Fact-check Senate Leadership Fund stated on October 11, 2022 in a political ad Cheri Beasley “backs tax hikes — even on families making under $75,000.” By Paul Specht • October 31, 2022 Here’s a brief summary of the bills, the political drama surrounding each one, and the funding it provided to North Carolina law enforcement agencies. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021: The House held two votes to pass different parts of this bill: voting 327-85 and then 359-53 with Budd voting no both times. The Senate then passed it 92-6 and Trump signed it into law in late 2020. The bill featured a $900 billion COVID-19 relief package and $1.4 trillion to fund federal government operations through September 2021. The Beasley campaign noted that the justice assistance and anti-heroin programs then provided a combined $7.1 million to North Carolina law enforcement agencies for fiscal year 2021. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020: The House passed this bill 280-138, with Budd voting no, and the Senate supported it 81-11 before Trump signed it in late 2019. It included $1.4 trillion to fund federal government operations through the next September. Among other things, it boosted funding for the military and aside nearly $1.4 billion fencing along the southern U.S. border. The Beasley campaign said the bill provided a combined $6.6 million for North Carolina law enforcement agencies through the justice assistance, anti-heroin and anti-meth programs. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019: Trump signed this spending plan into law in February 2019 after a record 35-day funding lapse forced 800,000 federal workers to go without paychecks through Christmas and much of January, The Washington Post reported. It included $333 billion for federal government operations but didn’t include as much funding for fencing along the border as Trump wanted, so he simultaneously announced plans to acquire funding by declaring a national emergency. It passed the Senate 83-16 and the House 300-128, with Budd voting against it. North Carolina law enforcement agencies later received $7.6 million through the justice assistance, anti-heroin and anti-meth programs. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018: Trump in March 2018 signed a $1.3 trillion spending bill that funded the government through that September. Trump famously slammed the bill and said he would "never sign" another one like it, partly because of its hasty development and partly because it didn’t fund his goals. CNBC reported that Trump tried to negotiate for more funding for a wall on the southern border and used the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program as leverage, but it didn’t work. It passed the House 256-167, with Budd voting against it, and the Senate 65-32. The Beasley campaign said the bill allotted a combined $5.5 million to law enforcement programs through the justice assistance and anti-heroin grants. Altogether, the funding to North Carolina law enforcement agencies through those four appropriations bills totalled about $26.8 million. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017: The House passed this $1.2 trillion bill 309-118, with Budd voting against it. The Senate then passed it 79-18 and Trump signed it into law in May 2017. While the bill boosted spending for the military and border security, Democrats were able to block significant funding for a wall along the border and stop major cuts to domestic programs that Trump wanted, CNBC reported. The Beasley campaign said it also included $5.1 million in grants in North Carolina law enforcement agencies through the justice assistance and anti-meth programs. Budd says he opposed spending bills, but not because of law enforcement The Budd campaign didn’t dispute that the appropriations bills funded federal grant programs that helped North Carolina law enforcement agencies. His campaign said he opposed the bills for a number of reasons, from what he viewed as insufficient border wall funding to adding to the national debt and contributing to inflation. "By opposing these massive spending bills, Ted is standing for: Fiscal responsibility, border security, balanced budget, not paying people (to) not work, and against spiking inflation," Felts said. Budd’s campaign says other votes to fund law enforcement show his commitment to police. In approving the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 this year, the U.S. House held two key votes to cover different parts of the bill. Budd supported the part of the bill that funded the U.S. Justice Department, which funds the justice assistance program. North Carolina agencies received $5.5 million through the program for fiscal year 2022. Budd has also supported other bills that seek to fund law enforcement agencies. He voted for the Invest to Protect Act of 2022, which would provide $60 million each year from 2023 to 2027 to local governments that employ fewer than 125 law enforcement officers. The bill awaits a hearing in the Senate. In 2020, he introduced the Community Policing Act which would direct the Justice Department to make grants available to law enforcement agencies for de-escalation training and community outreach. The Budd campaign also boasts endorsements from the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association, the North Carolina Troopers Association and the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police. Our ruling Beasley said that Budd, "on four separate occasions, voted against funding for police here in North Carolina to the tune of more than $32 million." It’s fair to say that Budd voted against bills that funded grants that ultimately sent funds to North Carolina law enforcement agencies. However, Beasley got her numbers mixed up. The funding was included in massive spending plans that featured trillions of dollars for federal government operations and other initiatives, from stimulus checks to border wall funding. And Budd says he opposed the bills for reasons unrelated to law enforcement funding. Beasley cherry-picked small details of a massive spending plan to make a misleading assertion. The claim has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly Fals

There are no photos of “Biden in the Oval Office” from after early 2021 Since President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, false claims that his presidency is staged have proliferated online. We’ve debunked social media posts that a White House event was filmed at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, and that his administration created a fake set for him to get a booster shot. Neither was true. Nor is a recent Instagram post that suggests Biden hasn’t been photographed in the Oval Office since early 2021. "Go search images of ‘Biden in the Oval Office,’" the Oct. 23 post says. "Every damn one of them is from early 2021." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We’re not sure where the person who made this claim searched for these images, but when we Googled "Biden in the Oval Office," plenty came up. RELATED VIDEO Many but not all of the top image results were from January 2021. But there were many images taken since then, too. Here’s a sample of what we found: Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on November 1, 2022 in an Instagram post “Two thirds of eligible voters don’t vote.” By Amy Sherman • November 4, 2022 A Getty Images photo of Biden meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office on Sept. 16. A photo taken by New York Times photographer Doug Mills on Sept. 15 of Biden meeting there with negotiators from railway companies and unions. A Getty Images photo of Biden meeting with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in the Oval Office on July12. Hundreds of Associated Press images of Biden in the Oval Office, or arriving or departing from the Oval Office, in the past year. And, in an Oct. 16 White House Instagram post, Biden and his dog, Commander, in the Oval Office. We rate claims that there are no images showing Biden in the Oval Office since early 2021 Pants on Fire!

Says Tim Michels "opposes closing the loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns. In Wisconsin’s race for governor, each candidate (and their supporters) have been portraying the other as too radical to lead the state. That includes the A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, which in a campaign ad slams Republican challenger Tim Michels on what it terms a gun law "loophole." "There’s a dangerous loophole that lets some domestic abusers buy guns," intones the voiceover in the 15-second ad, which was launched online Sept. 12. "Politicians in both parties are trying to close the loophole. You know who said they won’t? Radical Tim Michels." Michels, of course, is in a hotly contested battle against Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who is seeking a second term in the Nov. 8 election. The claim comes in the wake of a May 2022 ruling by the state Supreme Court in a case from Brown County. In its ruling, the court unanimously reversed a circuit judge's ruling that a man's conviction for disorderly conduct counted as a domestic violence misdemeanor under federal law, which would then prohibit gun possession. The state high court found that, although the offense was domestic and violent, it's not the facts that matter, but the nature of Wisconsin’s disorderly conduct statute. That law allows conviction for a variety of actions, but since violence is not a required element, it doesn't match the federal definition. Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat whose office argued the case to the court, said at the time, "This decision means that more perpetrators of domestic violence will be able to possess firearms and get concealed carry licenses." So, is the group right about Michels’ position? Michels at WISN-TV town hall A Better Wisconsin Together describes itself as a state-based research and communications hub for progressives. When we asked for backup to the claim, a spokesperson pointed us to a 52-second video clip of Michels posted online by state Democrats from an Aug. 1 town hall meeting before the Republican primary. We went back to the full hourlong debate, posted on YouTube by forum sponsor WISN-TV, Channel 12, to see it all in context. Michels was responding to a question from an audience member who was described as an advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The question: "What’s your plan for reducing and/or eliminating the repeat acts of gun violence from those who have minor convictions and are still able to possess and/or purchase firearms in the state of Wisconsin?" Featured Fact-check Tim Michels stated on October 24, 2022 in News conference Tony Evers “wants to let out between 9,000 and 10,000 more” Wisconsin prisoners By Madeline Heim • November 4, 2022 The answer from Michels: "Yeah, so like I said, guns haven’t changed, society has changed. And I want to make sure that law abiding gun owners aren’t having their guns confiscated because an angry ex, ex-spouse, makes a complaint. ‘Oh, he made a threat to me and then the police have to go confiscate his guns.’ The Second Amendment is constitutional. It’s a right given by the Constitution to bear arms, and I will support the Second Amendment. I believe what we have to do is enforce the gun laws that are on the books." More on Michels’ position The Michels team did not respond to our request for comment by deadline. However, we found Michels has been quite clear on where he stands on the issue. Michels was a guest July 18 on the "Vicki McKenna Show" on iHeart Radio. Here is the relevant portion of the conversation: McKenna: Would you promise — the Biden administration, along with some Republican support, just passed a piece of gun control legislation that is going to try to entice states to adopt red flag laws? Would you — in exchange for dollars from the federal government. Would you pledge not to take that money, and not to encourage the Republican Assembly and Senate to pass red flag laws? Michels: The federal government wants to attach dollars to some agenda that they have, and we won’t take it if I don’t agree with it. … I own a lot of guns and I know how to use them properly. Red flag laws, you know, people are entitled to due process. You just can’t have somebody make a complaint against you, and … your Second Amendment right be taken away. Now, that won’t happen here in Wisconsin, when I’m governor. Under red flag laws, of course, typically police or family members are able to ask a court to force someone suspected of being a danger to himself or others to give up their firearms temporarily. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia have such laws, according to the Giffords Center, but recent federal legislation provided money to encourage states to establish such programs. Many states enacted such laws after mass shootings at schools. For example, in 2018, 14 states enacted them after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people. Republicans have balked at a push by Evers to put such a system in place in Wisconsin. For example, in November 2019, Evers called a special legislative session to take up two bills to expand background checks on firearm sales and implement a new red flag law. GOP leaders opened and closed the session within seconds, taking no action. Our ruling The A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund said Tim Michels "opposes closing the loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns." During a Republican primary forum, Michels noted: "I want to make sure that law-abiding gun owners aren’t having their guns confiscated because an angry ex, ex-spouse, makes a complaint." And in a radio interview, he said "You just can’t have somebody make a complaint against you, and… your Second Amendment right be taken away. Now, that won’t happen here in Wisconsin, when I’m governor." Michels through his statements suggests that closing this gun law loophole would be equivalent to taking away a Second Amendment right. We rate this claim True. window.gciAnalyticsUAID = 'PMJS-TEALIUM-COBRAND'; window.gciAnalyticsLoadEvents = false; window.gciAnalytics.view({ 'event-type': 'pageview', 'content-type': 'interactives', 'content-ssts-section': 'news', 'content-ssts-subsection': 'news:politics', 'content-ssts-topic': 'news:politics:politifactwisconsin', 'content-ssts-subtopic': ' news:politics:politifactwisconsin' });

New York state is outpacing the rest of the country, because shootings in New York are down 10%, and across the country the drop is only 2% Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed that shootings in New York State are falling faster than in the rest of the country. Hochul, a Democrat, is running for re-election against Republican U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin, who has accused her of being soft on crime. In a speech about public safety, she said that compared to last year, shootings are down. "Shootings across the state of New York are down 10% from one year ago," she said. "And we're outpacing the rest of the country — as you know, this is a national phenomenon, the gun violence, national phenomenon — we are outpacing the country, where on average across America, the drop is only 2%." We wondered whether this comparison is correct, and whether New York outpaces the rest of the country. We approached the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services for the source of Hochul’s claim. The first part of the claim, that shootings dropped 10%, comes from the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services. The agency collects data about shootings from 20 major police departments across upstate and Long Island: Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Hempstead, Jamestown, Kingston, Middletown, Mt. Vernon, Nassau County, Niagara Falls, Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, Rochester, Schenectady, Spring Valley, Suffolk County, Syracuse, Troy, Utica and Yonkers. Notably, New York City is not on the list. Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2022, and the same period in 2021, shooting incidents in which at least one person was injured or killed dropped 10%, according to the report, known as the Gun Involved Violence Elimination Initiative, or GIVE. The report showed 840 such incidents in 2021 and 756 incidents in 2022. The number of people injured or killed in these incidents decreased by 10.8%, but the number of people who died in gun violence incidents grew by 4.1%. The report also found a 25.6% increase in shootings involving injuries or deaths in 2022 compared with the average of the previous five years, 2017 to 2021. We asked Christopher Herrmann, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, about Hochul’s claim. He called the state’s report on shootings a reliable source. Herrmann, who previously analyzed statistics for the New York City Police Department, said shootings are also down in New York City, where shootings fell 12.6% in the first nine months of 2022 compared with the same period in 2021. The number of shootings there have continued to fall. The second part of the governor's claim, that shootings are down 2% nationwide, comes from a New York Times newsletter, according to Janine Kava, director of public information for the Division of Criminal Justice Services. The newsletter on Sept. 23 reported a 2% decrease in shootings, and it linked to the Gun Violence Archive, a national database of shooting incidents. The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit, collects data on shootings from more than 7,500 sources, including police departments and local news outlets. Its searchable database has information on each shooting with details such as where the incident happened and how many people were injured or died. We spoke with the archive’s executive director, Mark Bryant, who said that Hochul’s claim of a 2% drop in shootings across the country is correct. "Everything we’ve seen this year lines up to about 2%," Bryant said. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 15, 2022 in Instagram post Seattle authorities are investigating a string of serial killings. By Michael Majchrowicz • October 17, 2022 He noted that New York City has seen fewer shootings, despite some headline-grabbing crimes. But he warned against comparing results from two different data sets that contain different types of data. For example, the Gun Violence Archive tracks all incidents involving a gun, but the state’s GIVE report does not. Murder-suicides with a firearm are included in the state’s report, but suicides, officer-involved shootings and accidental shootings are not. The Gun Violence Archive includes all of these categories. However, anyone searching the database can filter them out. The GIVE report includes busy police departments upstate and on Long Island but does not include all departments, while the Gun Violence Archive records shooting data regardless of jurisdiction. We searched the Gun Violence Archive for all incidents in which at least one person was injured or died in a shooting, and we found the decrease in these incidents in New York State between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2021, and the same period in 2022, was 3.8%, not 10%. Our search included accidental deaths and suicides, which were likely outside the purview of Hochul’s remarks, made during a speech to law enforcement. When accidental deaths, suicides, and officer-involved shootings are removed from the Gun Violence Archive search results for New York State, the decline in shootings between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2021, and the same period in 2022, is 3%. We approached the Hochul administration with the search results from the Gun Violence Archive and our finding that New York State’s decline in shootings compared to the decline in the rest of the country is much narrower than Hochul makes it seem in her statement. In the absence of a nationwide, federal database that uses consistent definitions for reporting gun violence, the state used the Gun Violence Archive data cited by The New York Times to provide perspective on the issue, as the increase in gun violence since 2020 has not been limited to New York State, said Kava, a spokesperson for the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services. The administration noted New York City’s decline in shootings, 13.6% as of Oct. 16, and sent data from three other big cities, year-over-year, where shootings have fallen slightly or not at all. The decline in shooting victims is 2% in Los Angeles. Shootings increased elsewhere, by 2.3% in Baltimore and by 1.34% in Philadelphia. The administration stands by the data Hochul cited, Kava said. Our ruling Hochul claimed New York State is doing better than the rest of the country in the number of shootings, saying they dropped 10% in New York and 2% in the rest of the country. A state report of 20 police agencies does show a 10% drop in shooting incidents. A different database shows a 2% drop in shootings across the country. But comparing these results can be misleading, because they don’t contain all of the same types of shooting incidents, and the state report includes only some geographic areas. Independent of each other, Hochul cited reliable statistics. In New York, shootings appear to be down more than in the rest of the country, though it’s not clear by how much. Comparing New York with the rest of the country, as she did, mixes data sources and can give a misleading impression about where New York stands. The Gun Violence Archive, the source for her claim of a 2% drop across the country, shows a much smaller drop in New York state during the same period — a 3% or a 3.8% drop, depending on which types of shootings are counted. We rate her statement Half True

“Every single Senate Democrat voted against hiring more border agents. They voted against deporting felons. And they voted against ending catch and release. An ad from a conservative nonprofit called Citizens for Sanity uses video footage of a person climbing over a border fence and of masses of people on foot to claim that Democrats support "open borders." The 30-second ad gives viewers the impression that the U.S. is being overrun by people illegally entering the country and that Democrats are not doing anything about it. "Every single Senate Democrat voted against hiring more border agents. They voted against deporting felons. And they voted against ending catch and release," the ad’s narrator says as ominous music plays in the background. PolitiFact decided to fact-check the ad’s claims about Democrats’ votes and a lax stance on border security. We found that the ad paints a misleading picture. Inflation Reduction Act vote-a-rama votes Citizens for Sanity told PolitiFact that its claims are supported by Democrats’ votes during the 2021 and 2022 budget reconciliation processes. Budget reconciliation is a process used in the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of the 60 votes that would be needed if the opposition filibusters. This is how Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August. During reconciliation, senators vote on a series of back-to-back amendments in a period known as vote-a-rama. In the Inflation Reduction Act’s case, it gave the Republicans the chance to force votes on amendments that, if passed, could have derailed broad Democratic support for the bill. Many amendment votes fell along party lines. But focusing only on votes cast during this process doesn’t provide a full picture of senators’ stances on border security. Vote against hiring more border agents During the "vote-a-rama," Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., proposed an amendment to prohibit the hiring of any additional IRS agents until Border Patrol employed an additional 18,000 agents. The Inflation Reduction Act included a provision to give the IRS about $80 billion over the next decade, allowing some of those funds to be used to hire staff. All Democrats voted against Scott’s amendment, and all Republicans supported it. Citizens for Sanity’s ad ignores that a few days before senators voted on Scott’s amendment, Arizona’s two Democratic senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly, co-sponsored a bill to increase Border Patrol staffing, raise agents’ wages and create a 1,500 agent reserve force. (There hasn’t been a vote on that bill.) It also ignores that in March, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that included $100 million "for Border Patrol hiring and contractors, retention and relocation incentives and contract support." All Senate Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while 31 Republicans voted against it. Vote against deporting felons Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., presented an amendment to provide funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain and deport immigrants in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of crimes. Democrats also rejected this amendment. Featured Fact-check Adam Laxalt stated on November 20, 2022 in an ad “Biden and Democrats have dismantled border security.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • November 3, 2022 Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the Senate floor during the vote-a-rama argued that the omnibus spending bill already provided funding for ICE. "Four months ago, we gave $8 billion to ICE for this purpose," Durbin said. "Thirty-one Republicans voted against funding this purpose. One of them was the Senator from Tennessee." The omnibus spending bill appropriated $4 billion "for enforcement, detention, and removal operations." Vote against ending ‘catch and release’ Republicans often use the term "catch and release" when immigration authorities stop immigrants at the border and then release them so they can await their court hearings outside of federal custody. Under Republican and Democratic administrations, this practice generally happens because of a lack of detention space. Authorities say they do not release people who they believe pose a danger to others. A Supreme Court ruling has also said the government can’t indefinitely detain immigrants. Citizens for Sanity told PolitiFact that Democratic senators voted against ending "catch and release" when they voted against measures related to Title 42. Title 42 is a public health order that has been in place since the Trump administration. It was invoked at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic to help mitigate COVID-19’s spread; it allows Border Patrol agents to immediately expel immigrants who arrive illegally at the southern border. During the 2021 budget reconciliation process, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to establish a deficit-neutral fund to ensure the Department of Homeland Security expels immigrants under Title 42. Democrats rejected the bill, Republicans supported it. In the 2022 reconciliation process, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., introduced an amendment to "provide additional funding for implementation of title 42." Democrats similarly voted against this amendment. However, keeping Title 42 would not end "catch and release," as Citizens for Sanity claims. Under the public health policy, immigrants are immediately expelled and therefore are neither detained nor released into the U.S. Also, immigration law is still being enforced at the border alongside Title 42. This means some immigrants reaching the border are detained, released into the U.S. or sent back to their home countries regardless of the public health policy. In April, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill to delay the end of the implementation of Title 42. (There hasn’t been a vote on that bill, and Title 42 remains in place.) Our ruling Citizens for Sanity claimed that "every single Senate Democrat voted against hiring more border agents. They voted against deporting felons. And they voted against ending catch and release." Democrats voted against amendments related to those issues when Republicans introduced them during 2021 and 2022 budget reconciliations. However, focusing only on those votes doesn’t provide a full picture of the senators’ record. In March, all the Senate’s Democrats voted to support an omnibus spending bill that included funding to hire more Border Patrol agents and to detain and deport immigrants convicted of certain crimes. Also, Democrats’ vote against providing funding to keep an immigration-related public health policy in place did not invalidate border authorities’ ability to use immigration law to release immigrants into the U.S. while they await court proceedings. The ad contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False

Immigrants illegally in the country are treated “better than military veterans. In a video of a meeting with voters, Arizona Republican U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters describes what he believes is wrong with current immigration strategy. The problem begins, Masters said, with signaling to people here illegally that they can "come on in." "Not only will you not be deported, but we’ll treat you better than U.S. military veterans," Masters said in the video tweeted by a supporter Oct. 15. "Here’s cash. Here’s a cellphone. Here’s a bus ticket. A plane ticket." Nothing but facts from Blake Masters! 😂“They got one taste of their own sanctuary cities policy and they didn’t like it.” - @bgmasters pic.twitter.com/IRMfXN4nUR— Malcolm Davis 🇺🇸 (@MalcolmDavisGA) October 16, 2022 In fiscal year 2022, U.S. officials used immediate expulsion at the southern border more than 977,000 times, under a rule known as Title 42, a public health policy intended to prevent the introduction of a contagious disease into the U.S. through immigration. That’s in addition to formal deportation proceedings through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which totaled about 59,000 in fiscal year 2021. But what caught our eye was Masters’ comparison of the treatment of border crossers with treatment of veterans. We debunked this talking point when former President Donald Trump said it in 2016, and it remains wrong today. Spending heavily favors veterans At the very least, Masters’ comparison faces one formidable number: $269 billion, the amount the Veteran Affairs department received in fiscal year 2022. Most of that money goes to help veterans with health care, housing, job training and a host of other services. There’s no simple way to tally every single dollar the federal government spends to shelter, feed and provide medical care to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. We looked at some of the larger line-item expenses at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and Health and Human Services. We found aggregate yearly spending in the neighborhood of $11 billion. That is a small fraction compared to spending on veterans. David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called Masters’ comparison "absurd." "It's not remotely plausible to think immigrants crossing illegally receive greater benefits than veterans," Bier said. "Immigrants cannot access most federally funded benefits programs at all without legal status, and they do not receive any of the special assistance provided to veterans." Masters campaign relies on incorrect and shaky examples Masters mentioned cash, cellphones and bus and airline tickets. There are flaws with each argument. Immigrants illegally in the country are ineligible for any form of federal cash assistance, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. (Some states allowed them to apply for one-time COVID-19 relief money.) In contrast, there are several federal cash aid programs for veterans. They include payments to low-income and disabled veterans, their surviving spouses and their dependent children. Congress appropriated $139 billion in 2022 for veteran financial aid programs. Some veterans are eligible for free cellphone service. And it’s true that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements will give smartphones to some immigrants. But those phones can’t be used to make personal phone calls or browse the web. They are for tracking people who have been released from detention and are awaiting court hearings. As for the bus and airline tickets, Republican governors in Texas and Florida have made headlines for busing or flying immigrants across the United States, including to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago, but immigrants don’t pick the destination. Those governors decided to move those people beyond their borders. Federal immigration officials fly detainees to detention centers, or pay to move an unaccompanied minor to a parent or sponsor. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 25, 2022 in an Instagram post The documentary “2,000 Mules proves” Democrats “cheated on the 2020 elections.” By Jon Greenberg • October 28, 2022 Meanwhile, the VA covers transportation costs for any veteran who needs help getting to and from a health care center. Katie Miller, an adviser to Masters’ campaign, focused on the fate of homeless veterans, who she said "have been left to suffer, even die." "More effort has gone into finding homes for almost 300,000 unaccompanied children, while no such comparable effort has been made to house veterans in need of housing or get treatment to veterans in need of treatment," Miller said. We asked Miller where she got her number and she didn’t explain further. The Department of Health and Human Services reported that it had sheltered 122,731 children in fiscal year 2021. As of June 2022, there were about 10,500 in the department’s care. Since July 2021, the VA has awarded nearly $980 million to nonprofit organizations to keep veterans in their homes, or to find a permanent place to live if they were homeless. The VA reported that in 2022, so far it had placed 19,000 homeless veterans in homes. Also, the department’s 2022 budget included $3 billion to help veterans buy homes. Additional areas where veterans fare better than immigrants in the country illegally Our past work has found key areas where the advantage goes to veterans. Higher education: Veterans are eligible for higher education and training benefits. Students in the country illegally are not eligible for federal financial aid. Health care: The VA health system and Medicaid are available for free to veterans in need. Although people in the country illegally can receive free emergency care, they are ineligible for Medicaid and any insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Taxes and Social Security: Veteran benefits generally are tax-free. They can receive Social Security. Many workers who are in the country illegally pay taxes and pay into Social Security — a total of about $12 billion in 2010, the most recent figure from the Social Security Administration — but, except in rare circumstances, are able to draw any benefits. Our ruling Masters said that immigrants in the country illegally are treated "better than military veterans." The numbers tell a different story. This year, the Department of Veterans Affairs has $269 billion to help veterans get health care, pay their monthly bills, build their skills through education and training and buy homes. In the past year and a half, the department has released $980 million to help move homeless veterans into permanent housing. By comparison, federal aid for immigrants illegally in the country is limited. Masters’ references to cash, cellphones and bus tickets were misleading and overlooked the wide gap between what veterans and immigrants in the country illegally receive. We rate this claim False.

A House Republican plan says that if the GOP wins the majority, “Retirees who have a pension, IRAs, 401k, disabled veteran benefits will be ineligible for Social Security benefits. A phony outline of a House Republican policy plan is making the rounds on social media in the midterm election season’s closing weeks. At the top, the image includes the logo of the House Republicans’ Commitment to America, a policy manifesto for the 2022 midterm elections. The text is as follows: "Entitlements are bankrupting our country and the future of our children. Republicans are the only Party with a plan to address our fiscal crisis and commit to the following if you give us the majority in November. "Make Social Security solvent by eliminating double-dipping. Retirees who have a pension, IRAs, 401k, disabled veteran benefits will be ineligible for Social Security benefits. "Raise the age for Medicare eligibility to 75 and eligibility ends for anyone over the age of 90. "Tax Disabled Veterans benefits. "Tax employer sponsored health care plans. "These simple steps will put our country back on the path of prosperity and ensure a bright future for our children and grandchildren." (Screengrab from Instagram) Featured Fact-check Rick Scott stated on October 30, 2022 in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" “All Democrats in the Senate and House voted to cut $280 billion out of Medicare just two months ago.” By Louis Jacobson • October 31, 2022 We found several versions of this post on Instagram. One version on TikTok shares the screenshot along with video of the poster expressing uncertainty about whether it’s from a genuine document. These policies are not commonly offered by the major political parties, which historically treat Social Security and Medicare as the "third rail" of politics — touch it and you die. The Republican Party under President George W. Bush looked into privatizing Social Security by making the program more like a 401(k), with a portion invested in stocks and other financial vehicles and with decisions controlled by the recipient. Since the program’s founding, the federal government has paid Social Security from a government-held trust fund. The backlash, especially among older Americans, was swift, and Bush-era Republicans backed off. But even that proposal didn’t go as far as the one in the screenshot would. Even a Bush-style privatized program would not have eliminated Social Security for people who had 401(k) plans, pensions, or disability benefits, as the screenshot suggests that House Republicans would do. Nor would it have raised the Medicare age to 75 and ended the program for everyone older than 90. Both proposals would affect many millions of retired Americans. House Republicans did produce a policy agenda called the Commitment to America, but it does not go nearly as far as the language in the screenshot. In fact, the only mention of Social Security in the agenda is: "Save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare." Google searches of the text of the individual elements of the "plan" did not produce anything from House Republicans, either. The office of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Instagram posts shared a screenshot showing a purported House Republican plan that says that if the GOP wins the majority, "Retirees who have a pension, IRAs, 401k, disabled veteran benefits will be ineligible for Social Security benefits." The screenshot is fake and does not align with language in the actual House Republican plan. We rate the posts Pants on Fire! PolitiFact contributing writer Becca Schimmel contributed to this articl

It’s impossible for colloidal silver to turn you blue In a photo from 2008, Paul Karason peers at the camera over glasses perched on his blue nose. All of his skin is blue, and in 2008, when this photo was taken, he was appearing on NBC’s "Today" show to talk about what happened to him after taking colloidal silver. Karason, who died in 2013, said that his skin started turning blue after treating it with silver and, for more than a decade, drinking colloidal silver, a concoction of tiny silver particles in liquid that’s sometimes promoted as a dietary supplement. He developed argyria, a discoloration of the skin caused by excess silver ions in the body. But a recent Instagram post sharing the picture of Karason suggests a scam is afoot. "It’s impossible for pure colloidal silver to turn you blue," the post says. "Not one person has turned blue. Ever. This clown made a home brew concoction that wasn’t silver." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 10, 2022 in a post “Premature babies are at a much higher risk of injury from immunizations than full-term babies.” By Andy Nguyen • October 13, 2022 It’s true that Karason bought a device to make his own colloidal silver at home, Wired reported in 2017. What’s not true, according to health experts, is that it’s impossible for colloidal silver to turn you blue. As we’ve previously reported, colloidal silver can imperil health and cause serious side effects, according to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The most common: argyria, which is usually permanent. The condition is caused by silver building up in the body’s tissue and, according to the center, people have developed it from using both homemade and commercial colloidal silver products. The Mayo Clinic has said that it’s unclear how much colloidal silver people can take before it harms them. It can build up in the body’s tissues over months or years. Although argyria doesn’t typically cause major health problems, the clinic said, "it can be a cosmetic concern because it does not go away when you stop taking silver products." Karason got the nickname "Papa Smurf" because of his skin’s blue tint, and earlier this year Snopes looked at claims that publicity surrounding his skin turning blue from colloidal silver was disinformation to scare people away from using it. Snopes declared that statement false. Claims that colloidal silver can’t turn you blue are also wrong. We rate them False

If a 12-year-old girl became pregnant because of rape or incest, "Tim Michels would force her to deliver the baby. The 2022 midterm elections are just weeks away, and abortion remains a centerpiece of candidates’ arguments. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ campaign released a dramatic TV ad on the subject aimed at Republican challenger Tim Michels. The 30-second spot, called "Twelve," features several young girls of that age — who, as the ad points out, can’t legally drive a car or vote. "But if this little girl were tragically raped or a victim of incest and became pregnant, radical Tim Michels would force her to deliver the baby," it says. It’s obviously an extreme example — but it points to Michels’ long-held opposition to creating rape and incest exceptions for Wisconsin’s abortion ban. So, is Evers right? Let’s dive in. Michels opposed rape, incest exceptions, but recently backpedaled Over much of the course of his campaign for governor, as well as a run for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin in 2004, Michels has opposed making exceptions to the state’s abortion ban for people who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Some states’ bans allow abortion in those cases. Wisconsin’s, which was passed in 1849, does not. (That ban ostensibly took effect in late June, when Roe vs. Wade was overturned, though Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul have filed a lawsuit challenging it.) Here’s a look at times Michels said he opposed such exceptions: Perhaps the most pertinent to this claim: Michels said in 2004 on the Wisconsin Public Radio show Route 51 that the example of a 12-year-old who had gotten pregnant because she was raped would be the worst crime, but that "what I would try and tell them is: There’s a life in there, a life that was created by God. And if you carry that baby full term, there’ll be 25 or 35 couples that will be there ready and willing to adopt that baby." (Michels’ team has noted that the quote is nearly 20 years old.) Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 19, 2022 in a post The diphtheria vaccine is a “poison dart” with side effects worse than the symptoms of diphtheria. By Andy Nguyen • October 24, 2022 Also during his 2004 Senate run, when asked whether a woman who was raped and became pregnant should be forced to have the baby, Michels said: "To ask (a woman) to go through the birth is not unreasonable when you talk about killing the life of that baby." In a June 2022 interview with WISN-TV, Michels said Wisconsin’s abortion ban is an "exact mirror" of his position, and even emphasized that he did not support rape or incest exceptions. On Sept. 6, at a GOP event in Dane County, Michels said he’d been fielding calls from people who were suggesting he should support rape or incest exceptions, and declared he would not soften his stance. He changed his tune in an appearance on WISN radio with conservative talk show host Dan O’Donnell on Sept. 23, saying he would sign legislation, if it was brought to his desk as governor, that would create rape and incest exceptions to Wisconsin’s abortion ban. "I am pro-life and I make no apologies for that," Michels told O’Donnell. "But I also understand that this is a representative democracy. And if the people — in this case, the Legislature — brought a bill before me, as you just stated, I would sign that." We rated it as a "Full Flop" on PolitiFact’s Flip-O-Meter. That would put a bit of a dent in Evers’ claim that Michels would force a 12-year-old to give birth in such situations. But although there has been some interest in the Republican-controlled Legislature in passing a bill with rape and incest exceptions, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said legislation addressing that is unlikely. So while Michels responded to the theoretical possibility, the more likely scenario is that the status quo remains — and he has not indicated he personally would work to advance such exceptions. In fact, after Michels said he’d sign a bill allowing them, his campaign staff repeatedly said his personal beliefs on the subject hadn’t changed — that is, that he still doesn’t personally support them. Our ruling The television ad from Evers’ campaign said Michels would force a 12-year-old girl to give birth if she became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Michels long opposed adding exceptions for rape and incest into Wisconsin’s abortion ban, though he recently said he’d sign a bill adding them. But that scenario appears unlikely, and his campaign has said his personal beliefs on the issue remain the same. We rate this claim Mostly True. window.gciAnalyticsUAID = 'PMJS-TEALIUM-COBRAND'; window.gciAnalyticsLoadEvents = false; window.gciAnalytics.view({ 'event-type': 'pageview', 'content-type': 'interactives', 'content-ssts-section': 'news', 'content-ssts-subsection': 'news:politics', 'content-ssts-topic': 'news:politics:politifactwisconsin', 'content-ssts-subtopic': ' news:politics:politifactwisconsin' });

Mark Kelly "voted to allow prison inmates to receive stimulus checks five separate times. An ad that spoofs a TV commercial makes claims that are no joke about Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly in Arizona’s high-profile U.S. Senate race. "Are you here illegally but need help getting your taxpayer benefits?" says the narrator in the 30-second spot that includes Spanish subtitles. "Are you an inmate that wants your Biden stimulus check? Mark Kelly is here to help." Kelly "voted to allow prison inmates to receive stimulus checks five separate times," the ad says. The ad ends with an image of Kelly behind the words: "Call Mark Kelly today! 1-800-LIBERAL." The ad is from Saving Arizona PAC, which did not reply to emails requesting information to back up the claim. The super PAC supports Kelly's challenger, Republican Blake Masters, in one of the races that will decide which party controls the Senate. Similar claims about Kelly approving stimulus checks for inmates were made in an earlier Saving Arizona PAC ad and by Masters in an Oct. 6 debate. We rated a claim that Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., supported "nearly $1 billion in stimulus checks for prisoners, including domestic terrorists" Half True. But the Saving Arizona PAC ad’s "five separate times" claim exaggerates Kelly’s support for giving stimulus checks to inmates. The ad does not make it clear whether it is referring to five votes by Kelly or five payments issued to eligible inmates. Neither claim is accurate. There have been three laws passed in response to the coronavirus pandemic that sent stimulus checks to Americans, including prison inmates. One of the laws was adopted before Kelly took office. He voted in favor of the other two, one signed by then-President Donald Trump and another signed by President Joe Biden. Kelly also voted against a failed amendment to exclude inmates from the Biden stimulus. That amendment was the only vote specifically about inmates receiving stimulus checks. Three stimulus measures in total In response to the coronavirus pandemic, Congress approved three rounds of stimulus checks, with 472 million payments totaling $803 billion. Featured Fact-check Mark Finchem stated on October 9, 2022 in a rally The Electronic Registration Information Center is “a system that’s funded by George Soros.” By Amy Sherman • October 17, 2022 Each of the laws allowed incarcerated people to receive stimulus payments. The ad is missing the context that most Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the first two rounds of stimulus funding, which included stimulus checks for incarcerated people and received overwhelming bipartisan support. The first law, signed by Trump in March 2020, distributed checks through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, aka CARES Act. The payments were $1,200 per income tax filer plus $500 per child. That was before Kelly took office. When Kelly took office in December 2020, he voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which Trump signed. It distributed coronavirus relief checks of $600 per income tax filer plus $600 per child. Kelly also voted for the American Rescue Plan Act, which Biden signed into law in March 2021. Kelly voted against a failed Republican amendment that would have prohibited prisoners from receiving checks — $1,400 for single taxpayers and $2,800 for joint filers. Democrats said the amendment would have hurt incarcerated people’s families, making it harder for them to pay their bills. There were a number of other votes in relation to the 2021 bill, but they did not pertain to whether inmates should receive payments. For example, Kelly voted for a motion to proceed, and against a motion to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving checks. Kelly’s campaign pointed out that one vote footnoted in the ad refers to loans in the Paycheck Protection Program. But that vote doesn’t support the ad’s claim because that program was not a stimulus plan. The vote concerned a failed measure in March 2021, which Kelly voted against, that would have prohibited awarding Paycheck Protection Program loans to people convicted of a felony "in relation to a riot or civil disorder" during the preceding two years. Our ruling Saving Arizona PAC claimed Kelly "voted to allow prison inmates to receive stimulus checks five separate times." Stimulus checks have been sent to Americans three times in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Inmates were eligible to receive all three payments. There weren’t five votes by Kelly or five payments to inmates. Kelly, who wasn’t in office when the first stimulus package passed, voted for two of the measures, one signed by Trump and one signed by Biden. He also voted not to exclude inmates from the Biden package, which was the only vote specifically about inmates getting stimulus checks. The statement contains an element of truth that Kelly voted in favor of stimulus checks, which prison inmates were eligible to receive. But the claim ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, including that Kelly was not even in office when one of the stimulus payments was approved, with support from Republicans. We rate it Mostly False. RELATED: Fact-checking ads in the 2022 election campaigns RELATED: Arizona fact-chec

Haitian singer Mikaben died because of the COVID-19 vaccin The Haitian singer Mikaben died Oct. 15 after collapsing on stage during a performance in Paris. A few days later, a representative for Mikaben, whose real name was Michael Benjamin, said the musician went into cardiac arrest. On social media, some users are claiming without evidence that Mikaben died because of the COVID-19 vaccine. "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome," read the caption of a screenshot of a New York Post headline about Mikaben’s death shared on Instagram. "#COVID19 #Coronavirus #Collapsitarian #COVID19WasAnInsideJob" "Are y’all #payingattentionyet," read another with emojis used to depict a COVID-19 vaccine. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We found no evidence to support the claims that Mikaben died because of the COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, we didn’t find anything documenting that he received a COVID-19 vaccine. RELATED VIDEO These claims are being made without evidence, the latest of a particular brand of rumor that has followed high-profile deaths during the pandemic. Vanessa Fanfan, Mikaben’s wife, has posted about his death on Instagram, writing that "this pain is very heavy." A statement from the family also posted on her social media account described his death as a "sudden loss." If evidence emerges that Mikaben died because of the COVID-19 vaccine, we’ll revisit this fact-check. But for now, the claims are unfounded. We rate them False.

A video shows an actor “getting into character before his press interview less than 24 hours after the supposed killing of his 6-year-old daughter. On Oct. 12, a Connecticut jury ordered conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay $965 million to the family members of victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and an FBI agent — people who said they were targeted and traumatized by Jones’ lie that the 2012 shooting was a hoax. Among the relatives of victims who Jones falsely claimed were actors hired as a plot to seize Americans’ guns: Robbie Parker, whose 6-year-old daughter, Emilie, was killed. A recent Instagram post echoes this claim. "Never forget the main character #RobbieParker in the [email protected] Ho0k hoax getting into character before his press interview less than 24hrs after the supposed killing of his 6 year old daughter," the Oct. 15 post said. (It’s possible that the misspelled reference to the school was intentional to avoid moderation.) It featured a CNN clip of Parker speaking the day after the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 12, 2022 in a Facebook post “Trump woken up from his bed by police.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 14, 2022 This Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) In a story published the day after the verdict was issued in Jones’ defamation case, The Washington Post recalled that moment aired on CNN, when Parker became the first parent of a child killed in the shooting "to voice his grief in public" — an "anguished statement, full of love for Emilie" that was broadcast across the country. "Jones, too, was watching," the Post reported. "He seized upon something Parker did — a brief laugh at a remark by his father as he faced an unexpectedly large throng of journalists — to advance the falsehood that the shooting was staged." But Parker laughed, not because he was an actor getting to character, but because he was nervous and didn’t know how to start talking to reporters, the Post said. Parker’s dad was standing nearby and encouraged him, using a childhood nickname that prompted the laugh. RELATED VIDEO Parker isn’t the only family member of shooting victims who has been wrongly accused of being an actor in a plot to disarm gun owners. False flag conspiracy theories have followed every mass shooting in recent memory. But they’re wrong, and so is this. We rate claims that Robbie Parker is an actor Pants on Fir

“The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school. A routine meeting of a group of vaccine experts who advise the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention became the target of a storm of misinformation after unfounded rumors that the group’s vote could result in nationwide COVID-19 vaccine mandates for school children. The misleading claims caused an uproar on social media. Fox News host Tucker Carlson weighed in, tweeting, "The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school." He also discussed it during his Oct. 18 television show. But Carlson’s claim misrepresents the impact of the CDC advisory committee’s vote. States establish vaccination requirements for attending school or day care, not the CDC. On Oct. 20, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in favor of adding COVID-19 vaccines to the CDC’s 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules. The CDC’s immunization schedules are a set of recommendations for routine vaccinations, which are based the advisory committee’s input. The committee — a group of medical and public health experts, including vaccine experts, doctors and scientists — reviews the data on new and existing vaccines to make its recommendations. The schedules are also approved by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics for children and the American College of Physicians for adults. Experts told PolitiFact that the committee’s vote to include COVID-19 vaccines in the CDC’s routine immunization schedule is only a recommendation for what vaccines should be given. It is not a mandate. Although state officials consider the CDC advisory committee’s recommendations when setting their requirements, experts said no state follows the CDC recommendations to the letter. The advisory committee’s recommendations are influential, but not determinative, said Dorit Reiss, an expert on vaccine mandates at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. The CDC refuted Carlson’s claims, retweeting him and adding, "States establish vaccine requirements for school children, not ACIP or CDC." Thursday, CDC's independent advisory committee (ACIP) will vote on an updated childhood immunization schedule. States establish vaccine requirements for school children, not ACIP or CDC. More: https://t.co/w80hpKCvtt. https://t.co/xSMZfihtm9— CDC (@CDCgov) October 19, 2022 PolitiFact reached out to Carlson for comment and his spokesperson directed us to a segment of his Oct. 19 show, where he doubled down on his claim. He fired back at the CDC, saying the agency had lied because "more than a dozen states follow the CDC’s immunization schedule to set vaccination requirements — not suggestions, requirements — for children to be educated." He said states including Massachusetts, Tennessee, New Jersey, Vermont and Ohio have policies requiring that students receive the vaccines included in the CDC’s immunization schedule. However, that’s not what their policies say. Katie Warchut, a spokesperson for Vermont’s Department of Health, explained that state statute sets immunization requirements for school attendance. The department convenes its own advisory committee that takes the CDC’s recommendations into account, she said, "but is not bound by them." For example, although the CDC’s immunization schedule recommends the influenza vaccine, it is not on Vermont’s list of required vaccines for school attendance. It is recommended. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 12, 2022 in an Instagram post Pfizer executive “admits” vaccine was never tested for preventing transmission. By Jeff Cercone • October 13, 2022 What did the CDC committee vote on? On Oct. 20, the advisory committee was voting "on updates to the 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules, including whether to add approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines," Kate Grusich, a CDC spokesperson, said before the vote. The committee later voted in favor of adding the COVID-19 vaccine. Grusich said that adding the COVID-19 vaccines to the immunization schedules would streamline clinical guidance for medical providers by including all "currently licensed, authorized and routinely recommended vaccines" in one place. (The immunization schedule for adults is here; the children’s schedule is here.) The CDC advisory committee already was recommending COVID-19 vaccines for children and included them on an interim vaccine schedule, said Reiss from UC Hastings law school. The discussion Oct. 20 was about "whether to put them on the routine schedule, and address whether they should be recommended generally, not just as an emergency," Reiss said. The COVID-19 vaccines are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and licensed for children ages 12 and older. For younger age groups, the vaccines remain under an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. Who sets vaccine requirements for school districts? The CDC does not determine which vaccines students are required to receive to attend school or day care, experts said. States set those requirements. Dr. William Schaffner, a health policy professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said there are no federal school vaccination mandates — from Congress or the CDC. "It’s never happened," he said. Schaffner serves on the CDC’s advisory committee as a non-voting liaison representative for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Each state has its own process by which new vaccines can be added to the list of required immunizations, Schaffner said. He said he does not believe the update to the CDC’s immunization schedule will prompt states to require COVID-19 vaccines. "It hasn’t happened for the influenza vaccine," Schaffner said. "Everyone in the United States 6 months and older should be vaccinated against influenza on an annual basis. That’s been the recommendation from the CDC’s advisory committee for over a decade. I don’t believe there’s a single state that has a mandate for flu vaccines." Reiss confirmed that no state requires flu vaccines for school attendance and "only a minority" require it for daycare. Our ruling Carlson tweeted, "The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school." That misrepresents the reach of the CDC’s immunization schedule. It is not a mandate. The CDC does not establish vaccination requirements for attending school or day care; states do that. Although state officials consider CDC recommendations when setting their immunization requirements, experts said no states follow the recommendations to the letter. The statement contains an element of truth because the vaccine was added to the childhood immunization schedule. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. PolitiFact reporter Jeff Cercone contributed research and reporting to this fact-check. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed research to this report. RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why is the COVID-19 vaccine not among required school vaccinations? RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why were the recent COVID-19 boosters authorized before human trials were complete

On Oct. 19, Donald Trump tweeted, “Thank you Elon Musk, I’m back!!! Earlier in October, it looked like former President Donald Trump had tweeted his return to Twitter, which in January 2021 permanently suspended Trump after the Capitol insurrection over concerns his comments could incite violence. Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s expected takeover of the social media platform has prompted speculation that he’d allow Trump back on Twitter, but Trump’s supporters shouldn’t celebrate yet. Even so, an image circulating on Instagram on Oct. 19 suggested otherwise. What looked like a Twitter alert from Donald J. Trump that day appeared to show the former president tweeting, "Thank you Elon Musk, I’m back!!!" But Trump didn’t tweet that, and @realDonaldTrump is still banned for now. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 10, 2022 in a post “Premature babies are at a much higher risk of injury from immunizations than full-term babies.” By Andy Nguyen • October 13, 2022 An Instagram post sharing the image was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) RELATED VIDEO Earlier this month, the account @realDonJTru appeared to have sent a virtually identical tweet thanking Musk. This account also remains suspended after sending the false tweet Oct. 9. We rated claims that the Oct. 9 tweet was from the former president False. Claims that Trump sent this Oct. 19 tweet are also False.

There are “100,000 kids in cages” under the Getty art museum Art in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles spans two campuses, the Getty Center and the Getty Villa Museum. Neither location has been ensnared in a huge human trafficking scandal, but a recent social media post suggests otherwise. "Underneath the Getty Museum is a network of tunnels and underground bunkers according to former CIA/NSA contractor Steven D. Kelley," the post says. "Child trafficking hub. 100,000 kids in cages." This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department told PolitiFact that it didn’t have any information about the claims in the post. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 23, 2022 in Instagram post California state Sen. Scott Wiener “doesn’t just want to sterilize California kids, but sterilization of kids everywhere!” By Michael Majchrowicz • October 31, 2022 Lisa Lapin, a spokesperson for the J. Paul Getty Trust, which runs the museum, told us "these reports are all fake and false." Searching online we found no credible news reports or other sources to corroborate the claim that a staggering number of children — more than double the number of students enrolled at the nearby UCLA — were being kept in underground cages beneath a public perusing artwork. The post echoes others we’ve checked concerning underground tunnels and child sex trafficking. We’ve debunked claims that the military rescued "tortured children from the tunnel beneath Capitol Hill," that Russian President Vladimir Putin released 35,000 children from tunnels and subways in Ukraine, and that authorities seized upon the home of media mogul Oprah Winfrey — a regular target of this variety of misinformation — and "they are excavating the property and digging up the tunnels." There was no evidence to support those claims, and there’s none for this post either. We rate it Pants on Fire!

“Boston University CREATES a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate. Social media lit up with news about what appeared to be an alarming study out of Boston University. "Boston University CREATES a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate — echoing dangerous experiments feared to have started the pandemic," read an Oct. 17 Instagram post that showed a screen grab of a Daily Mail headline. "A virus created in a lab? Where have I heard this before," read a caption with the post. We found numerous social media posts that also shared the Daily Mail headline, all alluding to the unproven theory that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab. They were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While scientists at Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories did undertake research that involved creating a hybrid COVID-19 strain, the headline omitted important context about the purpose of the study, the safety measures undertaken during the study and its results. The study, conducted in mice, reflected a common method for studying viruses and was not carried out dangerously, the university and other experts we spoke with said. What’s more, the study found that this hybrid strain was actually less fatal in mice than the original — not more. Ronald Corley, director of the Boston University laboratory, said attention given to the 80% figure has been used to promote a "sensationalized" message. "This was a statement taken out of context for the purposes of sensationalism," Corley said in a statement released by the university, "and it totally misrepresents not only the findings, but (also) the purpose of the study." About the study In the preprint study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the Boston lab wanted to examine the spike protein in COVID-19’s original omicron variant, called Ba.1. Their aim was seeing whether the mutations in those proteins were the reason why the virus variant is milder than earlier COVID-19 strains and evades immunity more easily, but leads to fewer fatalities. To do so, the researchers added a spike protein from omicron to an original strain of SARS-CoV-2 to create a new strain they called Omi-S. They then compared the effects that the virus’s new strain, ancestral strain and omicron strain had on infected mice. All of the mice infected with the ancestral strain died. All the mice infected with omicron survived. And 80% of the mice infected with Omi-S died. Researchers concluded the results showed the lesser severity of omicron is not linked to the spike protein mutations. They said more research is needed. The mice that were used were "a particular type of mouse that is highly susceptible," Corley said. "Consistent with studies published by others, this work shows that it is not the spike protein that drives omicron pathogenicity, but instead other viral proteins. Determination of those proteins will lead to better diagnostics and disease management strategies," said Mohsan Saeed, one of the study’s lead authors, in a statement provided by Boston University. "Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics," the school’s statement said. About the study’s safety The headline shared in these posts derived from an Oct. 17 article in the U.K. news outlet the Daily Mail, which Boston University officials criticized as being misleading. The article, which has been updated with a new headline and additional critique of the study, quotes experts who said the research was an example of "gain-of-function" research, a broadly defined term about research that can potentially make a virus more dangerous. But the school and other experts we spoke with rejected that assertion. They noted the work that was done in the Boston lab has been done elsewhere. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 Michael Imperiale, professor of microbiology and immunology at University of Michigan School of Medicine, said the Boston lab’s research could be considered "loss of function," because the new strain was less deadly than the original virus, which killed all the mice. He said it’s inappropriate to compare the Omi-S strain in this study with the original omicron strain, which killed none, because only the original strain was manipulated. Andy Pekosz, a microbiology and immunology professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the study’s work with COVID-19 is not unusual, pointing to two earlier similar studies. "This is a common approach to map differences between two related lineages of SARS-CoV-2 and, in fact, it's done with many different viruses," Pekosz said. "By swapping large parts of the virus, you can determine more quickly which mutations might alter a virus’s fitness or replication." Boston University also noted that the "research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA." Scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration co-authored a similar study published in September. The Boston research was conducted in the lab’s biosafety level 3 facilities, which allow researchers to work with dangerous pathogens. The lab is owned and operated by the school but it is part of a network of such sites around the U.S. where researchers can study infectious diseases. Pekosz called the facility "a safe way to handle even the most dangerous of SARS-CoV-2 variants." Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said critics are ignoring the "extraordinary safety measures" taken in places such as the Boston lab, and that such research is vital. "Safety comes first, but there is no indication that there was a safety problem," Gronvall said. "Understanding viruses like the one we are dealing with and which has killed millions requires, you know, studying it." Safety measures in the lab include a series of interlocked doors; sealed walls and floors; and sophisticated filtration and decontamination technology, according to the school. But these labs aren’t risk-free, as a Vox article noted. It recalled a case of a lab worker in Taiwan being bitten with an infected mouse and later exposing the virus to more than 100 people. In an interview with the health news site STAT, Emily Erbelding, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ division of microbiology and infectious diseases, expressed misgivings that the Boston researchers did not alert the agency to the type of work being done. "We wish that they would have," Erbelding said, though she also noted the media coverage overstated the risk of the work being done. Boston University in its statement said it had no obligation to report its work to NIAID. The NIAID funded tools and platforms used in the research but did not fund the research directly, it said. The research was approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Boston Public Health Commission, the school said. We reached out to NIAID for comment but didn’t immediately hear back. But an NIAID spokesperson told the Financial Times that the agency was "examining the matter to determine whether the research conducted was subject to the NIH grants policy statement or met the criteria for review" under government research guidelines. Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID’s director, said in an Oct 19 interview with CBS News that although the NIH did not fund the Boston study, "it was interpreted I think in an exaggerated way by some as being of great concern." Our ruling An Instagram post shared an image of a headline that read, "Boston University creates a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate." This is partly accurate. Researchers at Boston University are investigating what made COVID-19’s omicron variant less deadly and more likely to evade immunity. In that effort, they added a spike protein from a milder omicron virus to an original strain of SARS-CoV-2 to create a new strain they called Omi-S. When researchers compared the effects of the three viruses on mice, they found that 80% of the Omi-S-infected mice died. But citing the 80% figure alone leaves out key context, including that the resulting strain was less fatal than the original, which killed 100% of mice. Experts say this kind of research is not unusual and the experiment was conducted in accordance with accepted safety procedures. The mice used were highly susceptible to the virus. And the point of the study was to learn more about why the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 frequently evades immunity and leads to fewer fatalities. We rate this claim Half Tru

Video shows “California sets their own forest fires and claims them as climate change effects. A video of an aerial view of trees being torched below has been fodder for conspiracy theories over the years. Debunked claims in 2020 said it showed a Chinese spy setting fires in the United States, and a drone setting wildfires on the West Coast. Now it’s being used as evidence of a climate change hoax. "Soooooo… THIS is our TRUE climate change… got it," one Instagram post sharing the video said. "Apparently California sets their own forest fires and claims them as climate change effects!!!" another said. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 12, 2022 in a Facebook post “Trump woken up from his bed by police.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 14, 2022 The video shows a flamethrower mounted to a helicopter that’s involved in a controlled burn, a standard firefighting tactic to keep forests healthy, a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesperson told PolitiFact in 2020. A helitorch, according to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, is "an aerial ignition device hung from or mounted on a helicopter to disperse ignited lumps of gelled gasoline. Used for backfires, burnouts or prescribed burns." RELATED VIDEO The video was posted on social media in August 2020 and credited to an Instagram account with the username @joshua.payet, which appears to no longer exist on the social media platform. The account told Agence France-Presse in 2020 that he had filmed the video and was a trained firefighter but he wouldn’t reveal where the footage was taken. "Heli-torch," read the caption in the Aug. 21, 2020, Instagram post sharing the video. "Fighting fire with fire. … We are not just burning the forest. This is a tactic to fight a brush fire." We rate claims that this footage shows fires that California alleges were caused by climate change Fals

An anti-vaccine activist documented intimidation tactics used against her the day before she was killed On Dec. 7, 2020, Brandy Vaughan, an anti-vaccine activist in Santa Barbara, California, died. She was a former pharmaceutical representative and the founder of the anti-vaccine group Learn the Risk. Police found no signs of foul play, but some of Vaughan’s supporters were suspicious, speculating that she had been killed because of her activism. A YouTube post sharing a video in which Vaughan describes what she calls "intimidation tactics" against her describes the footage as "Vaughan documenting the intimidation she endured before her murder." A blog post said she was "killed in her home." And more recently, an Instagram post sharing the video said the footage was taken Dec. 6, 2020, and shows Vaughan documenting "her last day of life." "She was found dead in her home the next morning," the post says. "In this fight, I have been under a little bit of heat," Vaughan says in the video, "and I wanted to document this just in case." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 9, 2022 in a Facebook post “Donald Trump is back on Twitter,” thanks to Elon Musk. By Sara Swann • October 10, 2022 This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) We did a reverse image search of a still image from the video and found that the footage wasn’t recorded the day before Vaughan died. It’s been online since at least 2015, when it was posted on YouTube. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Coroner’s Office also ruled that Vaughan wasn’t killed. She died of natural causes, according to findings from its death investigation that were made public in February 2021. The investigation included an autopsy, in-depth toxicology screening, interviews and a medical record review, the office said in a statement posted on its website. The cause of death was a bilateral pulmonary thromboembolism, a blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs that in most cases is caused by a blood clot, according to the Mayo Clinic. We rate claims that this video shows Vaughan documenting intimidation against her the day before she was killed Fals

Video shows Hillary Clinton talking about a glass dome over the Earth Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly conceded the 2016 presidential election to former President Donald Trump in a speech on Nov. 9, 2016. In the speech, Clinton said, "I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think." An Instagram post shows someone playing Clinton’s speech on YouTube. Then, the person pauses the video. "She’s talking about the dome," the person says. Text over the video reads: "We live under a dome." The video goes on to show scenes from different movies, such as "Hunger Games" and "Godzilla vs. Kong" that the post says "portray a dome." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Some people who believe that the Earth is flat think it’s under a dome. In a 2020 interview with Scientific American, Michael Marshall, project director of the Good Thinking Society, a United Kingdom-based charity that aims "to promote science to challenge pseudoscience," said the idea that the Earth is a disc housed under a dome "goes back to the biblical idea of the firmament from and being the roof on top of the world." Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on October 12, 2022 in a Facebook post “Trump woken up from his bed by police.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 14, 2022 But Clinton wasn’t talking about this theory in her 2016 speech. Rather, she was alluding to the challenges women face. The phrase "glass ceiling" was first used by workplace advocate Marilyn Loden at a women’s business conference in 1978, and it became a metaphor for the struggles women encounter as they try to progress in their careers. Loden spoke about how her company had tapped her to explore why more women weren’t entering management positions, The Washington Post reported in 2018, and "she had gathered enough data that she felt confident the problem extended beyond what her colleagues were wearing or saying." The paper quoted Loden saying that "it seemed to me there was invisible barrier to advancement that people didn't recognize" — the "glass ceiling." Clinton’s comments right before the moment in the Instagram clip enforce that this is what she was talking about, not a glass dome over the Earth. "To all the women and especially the young women who put their faith in this campaign and in me," Clinton said. "I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion." We rate claims she was talking about a dome over the Earth as Pants on Fire!

Video shows Dr. Anthony Fauci admitting “he failed Americans during the pandemic when unnecessarily forcing masks. On Oct. 16, ABC News aired an interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci in which he reflected on his years of public service. He’s set to retire in December, nearly three years after the COVID-19 pandemic made him a household name. A recent Instagram post claimed that in his interview with "This Week" host Jonathan Karl, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the president’s chief medical adviser, admitted "he failed Americans during the pandemic when unnecessarily forcing masks." "If I had to do it over again, of course, I would have analyzed it a little bit better," Fauci can be seen saying in a clip from the interview in the post. But he’s not talking about "unnecessarily forcing masks" on Americans. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Before Fauci’s comment in the post’s clip, Karl asked him what the "biggest misconception" about him is. "That I was misleading people," Fauci said. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 16, 2022 in an Instagram post “Covid vaccinations now prohibited in people under 50 in Denmark.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 RELATED VIDEO Karl then said, "Would you take back what you said about masks? Obviously, the guidance changed." "Yes," Fauci said. "But you were very definitive," Karl said. "You said there’s absolutely no reason for people to be wearing masks." "Yes," Fauci said. "I mean, sure, if I had to do it over again, of course. I would have analyzed it a little bit better." But Karl and Fauci are clearly talking about comments Fauci made in March 2020, at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, to discourage people from wearing masks. "Right now, people should not be walking — there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask," Fauci said during an interview on CBS’ "60 Minutes" that aired March 8, 2020. Fauci would later revise his recommendation. By July 2020, he and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were both saying most people should wear face coverings in public settings to reduce COVID-19’s spread. Today, the CDC says wearing a mask "can help prevent severe illness" and recommends wearing masks in indoor public transportation settings, if a person is at high risk for getting very sick or indoors with someone at high risk of getting very sick. More guidance on when to wear a mask or respirator in connection with COVID-19 is on the CDC’s website. We rate claims that this video shows Fauci admitting he failed Americans by unnecessarily forcing them to wear masks False.