Datasets:

Cartinoe5930

/

Politifact_fake_news

like 0

Says Ron Johnson "wants to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every single year. As November’s midterm elections loom, some of the attacks are starting to become familiar. In Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate race, for example, incumbent U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican, is hammering opponent Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, a Democrat, for his views on social justice issues and crime. Barnes is hitting Johnson by pointing to his record and arguing the senator has left working people behind. Lately, that includes criticism of a suggestion Johnson made in early August: that Medicare and Social Security, two immensely popular programs that affect millions upon millions of older Americans, should be subjected to annual budget deliberations. President Joe Biden joined in during remarks on the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act at the White House Sept. 13. "Along comes Sen. Ron Johnson from Wisconsin," Biden said, before saying Johnson wants to put "Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every single year." Is Biden right? Let’s take a look. Johnson’s comments The claim has been used so frequently that Johnson’s office sent along several responses to prior questions about it. The White House, meanwhile, did not respond to a request for Biden’s evidence — though it’s clear what he was referring to. To understand what’s going on, let’s first understand how federal spending works. It falls into two baskets: Discretionary spending, which is determined annually by Congress and the president through appropriations, and mandatory spending, which includes programs governed by permanent law. In other words, items that fall into the discretionary spending bucket get reviewed each year, and if Congress doesn’t renew them, they end. Items in the mandatory spending bucket automatically proceed as usual unless Congress makes changes. Most defense programs, veterans’ health care, support for elementary and secondary education, scientific research and public health fall into the discretionary bucket. Social Security and Medicare are on the mandatory spending list. 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 On Aug. 2, Johnson told host Joe Giganti during an interview on his "Regular Joe Show" that he wants to turn everything in the federal budget, including Social Security and Medicare, into discretionary spending so programs could be evaluated and fixed. "If you qualify for the entitlement you just get it, no matter what the cost. And our problem in this country is that more than 70% of our federal budget, of our federal spending, is all mandatory spending. It’s on automatic pilot. It never … you just don’t do proper oversight. You don’t get in there and fix the programs going bankrupt," Johnson said. He added, "What we ought to be doing is we ought to turn everything into discretionary spending, so that it’s all evaluated, so that we can fix problems or fix programs that are broken or that are going to be going bankrupt." Annual review means annual chance for cuts Johnson has said he does not want to cut Social Security and Medicare; instead, he says, he wants to pull them out to ensure they remain financially solvent. "Without fiscal discipline and oversight typically found within discretionary spending, Congress has allowed the guaranteed benefits for programs like Social Security and Medicare to be threatened," Johnson spokesperson Alexa Henning told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Washington Post. With that in mind, Biden is stretching things by painting Johnson as wanting to put the programs on the chopping block, which implies that he hopes they are reduced. Still, putting them up for annual review would increase the chances that they are reduced by opening the possibility for a yearly battle. Our ruling Biden said Johnson "wants to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every single year." Johnson has repeatedly said he wants to put the programs under the stricter scrutiny of discretionary spending so they remain financially solvent. Still, putting them up for an annual review would increase the chances they’d be cut, simply because there would be an opportunity every year to do so. A rating of Mostly True means the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. 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' });

“Jen Kiggans’ campaign confirmed today that she would support a national abortion ban. Like many Democrats across the nation, U.S. Rep. Elaine Luria, R-Virginia, is trying to make abortion rights the central issue in her hotly contested reelection bid against Republican state Sen. Jen Kiggans. "After months of lying, Jen Kiggans’ campaign confirmed today that she would support a national abortion ban," Luria tweeted on Sept. 14. "She’s too extreme for Coastal Virginia." Has Kiggans endorsed a national abortion ban? We fact-checked Luria’s claim and found she has stretched some hazy statements recently made by Kiggans’ campaign. At issue is a bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would set a national ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The measure allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when continuing a pregnancy would endanger the mother’s life. The bill has almost no chance of passing the Democratic-led House of Representatives this year. And if Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate during this fall’s elections and a similar bill passed next year, President Joe Biden seems certain to veto it. Even so, the bill has stoked already heated debate on abortion following the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a constitutional right to an abortion. The June ruling empowered states to set their own abortion laws and was praised by Kiggans. Graham’s bill would allow states that have outlawed most abortions, or set restrictions at less than 15 weeks, to keep their laws. The bill would affect states, including Virginia, that allow abortions after 15 weeks. Did Kiggans endorse a national abortion ban? Kiggans has been difficult to pin down on abortion. She said she is "100%, unapologetically pro-life" while campaigning in the Republican primary this year but added few details. She modified her language this fall, vaguely saying she supports "commonsense" restrictions on abortions. After Democrats pushed Kiggans to take a position on Graham’s bill, Kiggans’ campaign spokesman Bryan Piligra told news outlets, "The vast majority of Virginians — and Americans — support commonsense restrictions on abortion such as protecting babies from 15 weeks on." We tried three times to reach Piligra for elaboration, but got no response. Other news outlets were also unable to get more details from the spokesman. 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 Luria’s campaign said Piligra’s statement justified its claim that "Kiggans’ campaign confirmed … she would support a national abortion ban." But there are problems with that conclusion. First, Luria’s claim — stated in large letters at the top of her tweet — suggests Kiggans supports an outright abortion ban. Kiggans has not called for that and Graham’s bill would not establish one. Nationally, 95.7% of abortions in 2019 occurred before or during the 15th week of pregnancy, where Graham would set the limit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Luria does quote a newsletter at the bottom of her tweet, in smaller type, that mentions the 15-week limit. Second, while Kiggans seemed to praise Graham’s bill, she stopped short of endorsing it. The Washington Post said, Kiggans "called a national ban on abortion after 15 weeks a ‘commonsense’ restriction but did not say whether she would vote for it." Virginia news outlets recognized this distinction and said that Kiggans "suggested" or "implied" she would support a 15-week national ban. The news reports also noted Kiggans’ mixed messages on abortion. For example, her seeming openess to Graham’s bill is at odds with her insistence that abortion should be a state matter. Luria is standing by her tweet. "Jen Kiggans praised a national abortion ban bill when it was introduced and then refused to follow up with reporters when asked for more details on her position," Luria campaign spokesman Jayce Genco wrote in an email. "Women’s reproductive health is on the ballot this November and we will not apologize for responding to the rare statements that she makes on this issue." Our ruling Luria tweeted, "Jen Kiggans’ campaign confirmed today that she would support a national abortion ban." At the bottom of the tweet, Luria noted she was talking about a proposed national abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Asked to comment on a proposed 15-week abortion ban, Kiggans’ spokesman said most American "support commonsense restrictions on abortion such as protecting babies from 15 weeks on." That clearly suggests Kiggans is open to the idea, but it does not confirm that she supports a ban. Kiggans has not clarified her position. We rate Luria’s statement Half True.

Ballot harvesting “altered the outcome” of a city council election in Yuma County, Arizona Among those who focus on the flimsiest of flaws in the 2020 election, Arizona Republican Mark Finchem has emerged as a leader. Finchem is running to be Arizona’s secretary of state, and in a Sept. 22 debate, he said a case from Arizona’s August 2020 primary illustrated his point. In Yuma County, Finchem said, there were many illegal votes through ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting isn’t an official legal term, but it generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. "We have people who were indicted for the very thing we are talking about right now, who pled guilty and frankly, those votes altered the outcome of Yuma County," Finchem said in a debate broadcast on Arizona PBS. "How do the people who were disenfranchised through nullification, how do we help them?" Two women did plead guilty in Yuma County, but their violation does little to support Finchem’s assertion that "those votes altered the outcome of Yuma County." Their crime involved as many as five ballots in a city council race, far too few to have any impact on the results. Breaking down election law in Yuma On Aug. 4, 2020, in the city of San Luis in Yuma County, Guillermina Fuentes was videotaped as she worked at a campaign table outside a community center. She was recorded handling an absentee ballot and ultimately bringing about four additional ballots — inside their required envelopes — into the center where there was an early voting drop box. Fuentes is active in the Democratic Party and is a former San Luis mayor. The campaign table was there to support three candidates for city council. Another city council candidate was in his car across the street. He videotaped the activity and alerted election officials. When the drop box was brought to the Yuma County Recorder’s Office, officials treated it as potential evidence of a crime. The 38 valid ballots it contained were counted and preserved for fingerprint analysis. Under a 2016 Arizona law, it is illegal for anyone other than a direct relative or caregiver to deliver someone else’s early ballot. Fuentes was charged with dropping off four early ballots in violation of that law. 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 She pleaded guilty to the felony charge of ballot abuse. A friend who was with her that day pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. State prosecutors had also charged Fuentes with filling out someone else’s ballot and signing the outside envelope. They considered far more serious charges than wrongly delivering the ballots but decided not to pursue them. There had been allegations that voters were paid to turn over their ballots, or traded in political favors with candidates in exchange for their ballots. In a court filing, prosecutors said, "the state's investigation has been unable to find any evidentiary support for these additional allegations." These votes made no difference in San Luis In the city council race, seats went to the top three vote winners. The three candidates backed by Fuentes won their races. Their margins of victory dwarfed the handful of ballots in question. By the county’s official final tally, the three winners had 1,186 votes, 1,163 votes, and 1,076 votes. The gap between the lowest vote-getter and the fourth-place candidate was 392. The votes Fuentes dropped off had no impact on the result. When pressed during the debate to say how those ballots changed the outcome, Finchem said he was talking about another issue — what redress voters have if an election is mismanaged. We reached out to Finchem and did not hear back. Our ruling Finchem said that ballot harvesting in Yuma County "altered the outcome" in the August 2020 primary. According to court filings, the number of ballots in question was no more than five. The smallest winning margin was 392. Those ballots could not have had any impact on the outcome. We rate this claim False.

“Barron Trump has been kicked out of school for fees. On the same day the state of New York sued former President Donald Trump, accusing him of fraudulently overstating his assets, a Facebook post claimed his youngest son was removed from his private school over a failure to pay tuition. "URGENT. Barron Trump has been KICKED OUT of school for fees, staggering amount they had to pay," the caption on a Sept. 21 Facebook post 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 Facebook.) The post includes a four-minute video with what sounds like a computer-generated voice claiming it will reveal the "truth about his fees in school." However, the video doesn’t mention fees. Instead, it talks about the now 16-year-old Barron changing schools following Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election and his subsequent move from Washington, D.C., to Florida. A spokesman at Barron Trump’s school, Oxbridge Academy in West Palm Beach, Florida, told PolitiFact the claim wasn’t true. Barron enrolled at Oxbridge Academy following his father’s 2020 move to his Mar-a-Lago estate in nearby Palm Beach. 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 private school was founded in 2011 by billionaire William Koch, the youngest brother of Republican megadonors Charles and David Koch, as a place where academically gifted students could get an education regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds. Tuition for the 2022-23 school year is $35,000, and financial aid and merit scholarships are available. Scott Siegfried, the school’s advancement director, confirmed Barron's enrollment. "We are pleased to state that Barron Trump continues to attend Oxbridge Academy and is a member of the Class of 2024," Siegfried said. Questions surrounding Donald Trump's wealth have followed him throughout his career, and he is known to have exaggerated his net worth. Our ruling A Facebook post claims Donald Trump’s youngest son, Barron, was kicked out of his school over a failure to pay tuition. A spokesman for Oxbridge Academy, where Barron is enrolled, said he is still a student at the school. We rate this claim False

Adam Laxalt took “campaign cash” from drug companies “and used his office to block local attempts at holding one of the worst offenders accountable. In the tight Senate race in Nevada, Democratic incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has criticized campaign contributions from drug and oil companies to her Republican opponent Adam Laxalt. A 15-second Facebook ad focuses on Laxalt’s track record as Nevada’s attorney general from 2015 to 2019. "While other states took multiple drug companies to court over the opioid epidemic, Adam Laxalt took their campaign cash and used his office to block local attempts at holding one of the worst offenders accountable," a narrator says in the ad. "Laxalt’s only in it for himself." Laxalt received campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies from 2014 to 2018, when he was first running for attorney general and then for governor. He also pushed against the city of Reno’s plans to sue opioid manufacturers. But the ad implies, without evidence, Laxalt did this as a result of campaign contributions. The ad also leaves out that Laxalt’s office was involved in investigations against opioid companies. Contributions to Laxalt’s campaigns Laxalt’s political career started in January 2014 when he launched his campaign for attorney general, a race he won. In 2017, Laxalt announced he would be running for governor. He won the Republican primary in June 2018, but lost to his Democratic opponent, Steve Sisolak, in the general election. Nevada’s campaign contributions database shows that between 2014 and 2018, Laxalt received $20,250 from Pfizer, Mallinckrodt and Purdue Pharma — all companies that manufacture opioids. Cortez Masto’s campaign pointed PolitiFact to this database as backup for the ad’s claim. Laxalt and Reno mayor argue over suing opioid manufacturers In June 2017, Laxalt announced his office was part of a bipartisan group of 41 attorneys general investigating the role of drug manufacturers in the opioid epidemic. The group did not identify any companies by name at the time. On Sept. 19, 2017, Laxalt and the other attorneys general issued subpoenas to the opioid manufacturers Endo, Janssen, Teva/Cephalon, Allergan and Purdue Pharma. They also demanded information from opioid distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson. A few months later, the city of Reno began exploring the possibility of independently suing opioid manufacturers. Laxalt reached out to Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve to discuss how this possible legal action could affect the multistate investigation, according to reporting by the Nevada Independent. On Nov. 6, 2017, Schieve responded that the city likely had different concerns and ideas from the state over what a settlement should look like. Laxalt told Schieve in a subsequent letter that the city’s effort might "unintentionally, undermine Nevada’s position in the multistate investigation." The letter was co-signed by the state’s top consumer advocate, Ernest Figueroa. Laxalt said the attorney general’s office had more experience in multistate litigation and had already undertaken investigations and lawsuits over deceptive marketing and sales. 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 should avoid actions that would let the companies under investigation pit Nevadans against Nevadans," Laxalt wrote. However, the letter did not say the attorney general’s office would block the city’s efforts. Schieve replied that Laxalt’s effort to deter the city’s lawsuit is "unsupported, and unfortunately pits ‘Nevadans against Nevadans’ when in fact the more claims being pursued by Nevada localities, the larger recovery may be achieved." Laxalt’s office sues opioid manufacturer In May 2018, Laxalt filed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma L.P., which manufactures OxyContin, an opioid medication. Laxalt accused the drug company of deceiving consumers about prescription opioids. (This lawsuit involved only Nevada, not the multistate investigation.) This was the first lawsuit filed by Nevada against an opioid manufacturer, according to a news release from Laxalt’s office. Reno files lawsuit against opioid manufacturer On Sept. 18, 2018, the city of Reno sued Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers and distributors, including Mallinckrodt. Laxalt said he welcomed Reno to "the ongoing fight to curb Nevada’s opioid epidemic" spearheaded by his office. In June 2019, Aaron Ford, who succeeded Laxalt as attorney general, dropped Laxalt’s lawsuit against Purdue and filed a larger one, naming 40 defendants, including Mallinckrodt. Our ruling Cortez Masto claimed Laxalt took "campaign cash" from drug companies "and used his office to block local attempts at holding one of the worst offenders accountable," while other states sued "multiple drug companies to court over the opioid epidemic." The ad contains an element of truth: Laxalt received more than $20,000 from drug companies between 2014 and 2018. Laxalt in late 2018 discouraged Reno’s mayor from suing drug manufacturers. But the ad leaves a misleading impression; Laxalt did not "block" the effort. Laxalt said he worried the city’s action could undermine an ongoing investigation by a multistate coalition that included Nevada. Separately, Nevada sued Purdue Pharma, alleging deceptive practices. Reno ultimately sued the opioid companies, and Laxalt supported the move. We rate the claim Mostly Fals

“Chinese military convoy enters Ukraine from Russia. As senior officials from Russia and China announced they had agreed to participate in more joint military exercises, a rumor spread on social media that the Chinese military was allying with Russian troops invading Ukraine. "Chinese military convoy enters Ukraine from Russia," said multiple posts appearing on Facebook on Sept. 18. A video in the posts is grainy and looks as if it was taken with a cellphone camera. It shows a line of military vehicles driving down the road. Occasionally, civilian cars can be seen driving in the opposite direction. But there’s no evidence to support the claim that it shows a Chinese military convoy entering Ukraine. 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.) Because the vehicles in the video were shot at an angle, it’s difficult to see some of the finer details. However, the sides of some of the military vehicles seem to display Chinese characters. But the passenger cars don’t seem to have Ukrainian license plates, which feature that nation's flag against a blue background. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 22, 2022 in an Instagram post A CNN headline shows Uganda’s president saying he doesn’t support Ukraine because it would be “disgusting.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 24, 2022 The footage appeared online as early as Aug. 29, when it was posted to YouTube. But the account sharing the clip there didn’t claim that it showed a Chinese military convoy entering Ukraine from Russia. Rather, the title, translated from Russian to English using Google Translate, says: "PLA to take part in Vostok 2022 land exercises." PLA is an abbreviation for the People’s Liberation Army, a Chinese military force. On Aug. 17, Reuters reported that Chinese troops would travel to Russia to take part in joint military exercises led by the country. China’s defense ministry said in a statement at the time that its participation was "unrelated to the current international and regional situation." In July, Russia announced that it would hold the "Vostok" (meaning "East") exercises in the country’s Far East region Aug. 30 to Sept. 5. That’s on the opposite side of the country from Russia’s border with Ukraine. The last Vostok exercises in 2018 took place with nearly 300,000 troops reported to be involved, including the Chinese army, according to Reuters. RELATED VIDEO After a widely covered meeting Sept. 15 between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Putin said that Xi had "questions and concerns" about the situation in Ukraine. The revelation that China had breached the Russia-Ukraine border would be international news, yet no credible sources make the claims that appear in these Facebook posts. In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sept. 18 on CBS, President Joe Biden said there has been "no indication" that China has tried to help Russia in its war with Ukraine. We rate claims that this video shows the Chinese military entering Ukraine False.

Photo shows fighting in Ukraine The Russian news outlet Pravda recently shared a story on Facebook that claimed the Ukrainian army had been "destroyed almost entirely." The Sept. 21 post featured a link to a news story with a photo that appears to show three soldiers crouching in a trench, dressed in combat uniforms and bearing machine guns. A barbed-wire fence and plumes of orange smoke can be seen behind them. 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.) Given the post's claim that Ukraine will "capitulate by early 2023," Facebook users might think the photo shows recent fighting in Eastern Europe, where Ukrainians have been trying to fight off a Russian invasion. 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 But the image is old; it was posted on the website of the Russia news outlet Sputnik in 2017. Its caption read: "Marines of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Federation and servicemen of a special unit of the Indian Armed Forces are disembarking at the stage of the first interspecific Russian-Indian exercises ‘Indra-2017’ at the landing range ‘Clerk.’" RELATED VIDEO The joint military exercise involved Indian and Russian armed forces and it was conducted in Russia’s eastern military district from Oct. 19 to Oct. 29, 2017, according to a press release from India’s defense ministry. Returning to the present, the BBC reported Sept. 20 that Ukrainian forces have "made rapid gains in recent days and have recaptured territory in the Russian-occupied Luhansk region in eastern Ukraine." Russian forces still control about a fifth of Ukraine, BBC said. We rate claims that this photo shows recent fighting in Ukraine Fals

“Lifeguard/football player Joe Biden got five draft deferments for asthma during Vietnam. President Joe Biden has shared anecdotes about his days as a student athlete in Delaware, where he played high school football and worked as a teenage lifeguard. But some social media users claim that despite his active lifestyle, Biden used health problems as an excuse to dodge the military draft for the Vietnam War. "Lifeguard/football player Joe Biden got five draft deferments for asthma during Vietnam," a Sept. 16 Facebook post claimed. 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 Facebook.) Biden did receive five draft deferments — but they were granted first because he was a college student, and later a law student. Following a 1968 physical exam, he received a different classification exempting him from service because of his asthma. Biden’s deferments first came under scrutiny in 2008, when he was running for vice president as Barack Obama’s running mate. That year, Obama’s campaign representatives released Biden’s Selective Service records to The Associated Press. The AP reported that Biden received deferments first in the early 1960s because he was an undergraduate student at the University of Delaware, and then because he was a law student at Syracuse University. He received his last student deferment in January 1968. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 27, 2022 in an Instagram post Video shows “military robots ready for war.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 31, 2022 Asthma didn’t come into play until later, as campaign spokesperson David Wade explained in 2008. "As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager," Wade told reporters. 1-Y meant that a person could be drafted only "in time of war or a national emergency." The Selective Service System terminated that classification in 1971. Our ruling A Facebook post says, "Lifeguard/football player Joe Biden got five draft deferments for asthma during Vietnam." The post implies that despite his active lifestyle, Biden used health problems as an excuse to dodge the military draft for the Vietnam War. Biden did receive five deferments, but they were granted because he was a student, with the last one granted in January 1968. Later, in April 1968, he underwent a medical exam and was then given a 1-Y classification because of his asthma as a teenager. We rate this claim Mostly False

Video shows an "invasion of crocodiles" that has flooded the beaches of Brazil and caused residents to panic A video featuring hundreds of reptiles sunning themselves on a shoreline is being characterized on Instagram as a giant horde of crocodiles that have terrorized Brazilians. "In Brazil, an invasion of crocodiles that have flooded one of the beaches with several hundred, and even thousands, and the local population is panicking," the video’s caption says. The Instagram user credits the video and caption to a radio host’s Twitter account. Although the footage does appear to be from Brazil, herpetologists we talked to say the reptiles in the video aren’t crocodiles and locals aren’t panicking about their presence. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Facebook’s parent company, Meta, owns Instagram. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Dr. Christine Strüssmann, a professor of veterinary medicine at the Federal University of Mato Grosso in Brazil, said the video was taken several weeks ago in the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland. It’s unknown where the footage originated, but one of the earliest uploads came from Pantanal Pesca, a Brazilian fishing store, which shared the video Aug. 25. A man could be heard in the video saying in Portuguese that the reptiles were in a part of the Pantanal in Mato Grosso, a state of Brazil. The Pantanal covers more than 42 million acres in South America. Although a bulk of the wetland is in Brazil, it also stretches into Bolivia and Paraguay, according to the World Wildlife Fund. The creatures in the video are yacare caiman, not crocodiles, Strüssman said. 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 "It is very common to have high densities of caimans at this time of year in the dry season," She said. Yacare caiman are a species of reptile more genetically related to alligators than crocodiles. Caimans have a u-shaped snout similar to alligators, whereas crocodiles have v-shaped snouts. Like alligators, caimans prefer freshwater environments. Crocodiles can thrive in both salt and freshwater. Caimans are found only in Central and South America, and the World Wildlife Federation estimates around 10 million of them live within the Pantanal. Crocodiles are found primarily in Asia, Australia, Central America and northern South America — not Brazil. Greg Pauly, curator of herpetology at the National History Museum of Los Angeles County, agreed with Strüssman, saying the "limited basking opportunities" in the Pantanal, where there are plenty of animals for yacare caimans to eat, result in huge groups like the one seen in the video. "The area can support a large number of caiman, but because of the limited basking opportunities, you can end up with high-density basking aggregations," he said. Pauly said the area where the caimans are basking is "clearly not a Brazilian beach" near the ocean, as the post implies. It’s the shoreline of the Nabileque River; land can be seen along both sides of the water. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed a video showed a horde of crocodiles invading a Brazilian beach, causing locals to panic. Reptile experts told PolitiFact the footage was not from a beach used by humans but of a sandy portion of wetland in Brazil. The reptiles were yacare caimans, not crocodiles. Caimans congregating in huge numbers is normal and not a cause for panic. We rate this claim False

Every time a Republican has been elected president over the last few decades, House Democrats have objected to the resul Rep. Lee Zeldin was one of 147 Republicans who voted against certifying election results after a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He brought up some lesser-known history in a recent news conference. In the past few decades, there have been Democratic objections to counting a state’s electors in the House of Representatives every time a Republican was elected president, said Zeldin, who is campaigning to unseat Gov. Kathy Hochul. "Do you know that every Jan. 6, every four years, whenever any Republican has been elected president over the course of the last few decades, same date, same time, same place, we have had Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives, objecting and debating?" Zeldin said Sept. 6. "All sorts of different objections, that’s been our process." Zeldin voted against certifying the results in Arizona and Pennsylvania, which showed that Joseph R. Biden beat Donald J. Trump. He is among the 139 House members and eight senators who voted against certifying results from one or two states. There has been no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election in any state. We wondered if Zeldin’s claim about Democrats’ past objections to certifying election results is correct. Federal law calls for the U.S. Congress to meet at 1 p.m. on Jan. 6 following the meeting of electors to certify the election results. The electoral votes of each state are read in alphabetical order. During that meeting, the president of the Senate "shall call for objections, if any." Each objection must be made in writing, with the signature of at least one member of the House and one senator. Attempts to object to election results have been made in some fashion by House Democrats in 2001, 2005, and 2017, following the successful campaigns of George W. Bush and Trump, both Republicans. One senator supported the objection in 2005, though the Senate and the House ultimately did not uphold that objection. Unlike Republican objections in 2021, Democratic objections in the 2000s happened after the losing candidate had conceded. In 2021, Trump did not concede until the evening of Jan. 7, and he had been plotting to remain in the White House. A group of House Republicans had met with Trump in the Oval Office in December 2020 to plan for Jan. 6, 2021, and to discuss how Trump could stay in office. In prior years, "the losing candidate didn’t support any of these objections," said Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has testified about reforming the Electoral Count Act and was active in efforts to impeach Trump. "Here, Trump drove those objections." 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 2001, in the aftermath of a contested ballot counting process in Florida, House members said black voters in that state had been disenfranchised. No senator joined in the objections, and Vice President Al Gore - who lost the presidential election - gaveled them down. In 2005, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, along with 30 other House members, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., objected to the Ohio electoral votes. The joint session of Congress paused while each chamber considered the objection, according to the Congressional Research Service. The House and the Senate each rejected the objection, and when the joint session resumed, Ohio’s electoral votes were counted. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who gave a concession speech on Nov. 3, 2004, said he would not take part in the protest. In 2017, Biden gaveled down House Democrats who objected to Trump’s win because they did not have support from a senator. The history of Democrats objecting to Republican presidential winners was documented by Derek T. Muller, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, in an essay published Jan. 6, 2021, in The New York Times. "Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection," Muller wrote. "But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting." Muller told PolitiFact that legally speaking, there was no difference between Democratic objections in prior years and Republican objections in 2021, though circumstances around those votes were different. In June, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True on the House Republican Conference tweet that House Jan. 6 Committee chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., voted to object to Ohio’s slate in 2005, when the electoral votes from the 2004 election were officially counted in a joint session of Congress. Our ruling Zeldin said House Democrats have objected to certifying election results after every election in the last few decades when Republicans have won. Some Democrats filed objections in 2001, 2005, and in 2017, following elections that Republicans won. But the circumstances were different from those in 2021. In the earlier years, the losing candidate had already conceded. After the 2020 election, Trump was trying to overturn the election, and he had met with some House Republicans to further that goal. In the previous years, not even the losing candidates were seeking to overturn the results. The objections were more symbolic than the 2021 effort to block the election results. In 2021, the objections could have overturned the presidential election. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate this Mostly Tru

Meghan Markle wasn’t allowed to attend Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral Since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle — the Duke and Duchess of Sussex — stepped down from their royal duties in 2020, their relationships with the rest of the royal family have been the subject of much speculation and gossip. Queen Elizabeth II’s death on Sept. 8 intensified that scrutiny, and one recent Facebook post claimed that tensions between Markle and the queen were high enough that she was banned from Elizabeth’s funeral. "SO SAD for Meghan as she was DENIED to join THE FUNERAL by QUEEN’S LAST ORDER," the Sept. 17 post said. 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.) 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 But this is codswallop. A quick online search reveals plenty of news reports and photos of Markle at the queen’s funeral and no word about a supposed "last order" denying her the opportunity to attend. "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle occupied highly visible spots at the state funeral for Queen Elizabeth II" on Sept. 19, Time reported. Markle wore a pair of diamond-and pearl stud earrings gifted to her by the queen, Harper's Bazaar said. People noted that Markle wiped away a tear as she shared a "sweet moment with Princess Charlotte," her niece, at the funeral. We rate claims that she wasn’t there False.

Once every thousand years “your age + your year of birth, every person = 2022. For one day every thousand years, adding your age and the year you were born will total to 2022 — at least according to some Facebook lore. "Amazing!" a Sept. 10 post said. "Everyone’s age today is 2022. Did you know that today the whole world is the same age! Today is a very special day and only happens once every thousand (1,000) years. Your age + your year of birth, every person = 2022. It’s so strange that even experts can’t explain it! You check it out and see if it’s 2022. It has been waiting for a thousand years. Example: I am 68 years old. I was born in 1954. So 68 + 1954 = 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.) 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 reality, this phenomenon will happen every day for the rest of the year after your birthday passes in 2022. Because that’s how you calculate your age, no matter what year you’re in or what day it is. This nugget of misinformation has persisted online for several years; versions of it were debunked by Snopes in 2018 and the Australian Associated Press in 2019. We rate the claim that this is a once-in-a-millennium phenomenon False. Correction, Sept. 26, 2022: This fact-check and its headline have been corrected to reflect that the claim in this post was that this only happened once every 1,000 years, or once in a millennium. The rating is unchange

“Mandela Barnes…wants to release 50% of the prison population when 68% is classified as ‘violent offenders.’ Republicans have zeroed in on the record of U.S. Senate candidate Mandela Barnes, a Democrat, as it relates to crime and punishment — or, in one scenario, crime and a lack of punishment. That includes the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the outfit charged with re-electing U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and other Republicans to the Senate. In a Sept. 9 news release, the committee claimed that Barnes "wants to release 50% of the prison population when 68% is classified as ‘violent offenders.’ " Let’s take a closer look at that claim. The difference between "release" and "reduce" The first part of the claim brings us to some familiar ground. When we asked the National Republican Senatorial Committee for backup for the claim, they sent a link to a February 2021 Madison365 video, in which Barnes talks about a program he supported during his time in the state Assembly, the 11x15 campaign. The campaign called for reducing Wisconsin’s prison population by 11,000 inmates by 2015. The program fell short of that goal — something Barnes acknowledged in the video. But some of its ideas were embraced by Tony Evers in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign, such as considering early release for some inmates, overhauling truth in sentencing and treating 17-year-olds as juveniles instead of adults. Evers won the state’s top job, with Barnes as his running mate. But looking at the 11x15 campaign, and at the promises that Evers made during the campaign, one word stands out, reduce. That compares to the National Republican Senatorial Committee email, which uses the more inflammatory release. In March 2020, we rated Half True a claim that Evers wanted to release half the prison population. In that item, we noted the definition of the two words at the center of the debate. Reduce is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as meaning "to diminish in size, amount, extent or number." 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 Release is defined as "to set free from restraint, confinement or servitude." Meanwhile, in an August 2018 fact-check, we rated Half True a claim by then-Gov. Scott Walker that the plan of his rival, Evers, to reduce the population in Wisconsin jails would release "thousands of violent felons." That fact-check noted that release implies a sudden casting open of the prison gates. But Evers had noted repeatedly the drop was a goal and achieving it would take time, through such things as changing sentencing guidelines, increasing funding for treatment-based probation and other policy-related adjustments. The idea was to reduce the number of people being housed in prisons over about a decade without immediately releasing any current inmates. So, in short, the committee misses its mark on this portion of the claim. Violent offenses Now let’s look at the second part of that claim. Kenneth Streit, a clinical professor of law emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said those considered "violent offenders" were convicted of crimes such as homicide, sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assaults. When asked about how much of Wisconsin’s prison population consists of people sentenced on those types of charges, Streit pointed to data from a 2018 Corrections Department report, the most recent available. In that report, 66% of the state’s prison population consisted of inmates sentenced for a violent offense, 13% sentenced for a property-related offense, 12% for drug-related offenses and 9% for public order offenses, such as operating while impaired. But Streit noted that the majority of those incarcerated for violent offenses have been in jail longer than the other types of crimes, too. "Violent offenses are actually a much lower percentage of all admissions to prison," he said. "However, they tend to have much, much longer terms and therefore there is little turnover. The other groups have comparatively shorter sentences and, often, they spent a long time in county jail prior to sentencing. Therefore they turnover much more quickly." Our ruling The National Republican Senatorial Committee claimed Barnes wants to release 50% of Wisconsin’s prison population, when 68% of inmates are considered "violent offenders." Although Barnes has advocated for the "reduction" of the state’s prison population, he hasn’t endorsed the immediate "release" of 50% of inmates — and there is a key difference in those two words. Reducing the number of inmates would likely require years of policy changes, as opposed to just letting people out of prison, no matter their offense. Meanwhile, the number of people who have been convicted of committing violent offenses is a large portion of the prison population — but largely because other offenses allow for shorter jail times. We rate this statement as Half True — it’s partially accurate, but leaves out some important details or takes something out of context. 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' });

Three court rulings since May 2022 “have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to ban someone between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to buy an AR. Amid calls for a special legislative session after the May 24 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the state's governor, Greg Abbott, has not changed his stance on gun laws or on calling a special session. Uvalde community members have called on officials to raise the minimum age from 18 to 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15-like assault-style rifle used to kill 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary. Some states have raised the age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. While campaigning for re-election on Aug. 31, Abbott said the law that Uvalde residents are seeking "has already been ruled to be unconstitutional." "There have been three court rulings since May that have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to ban someone between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to buy an AR. That came out of the federal court of appeals," Abbott said, also claiming there was a Supreme Court decision that upheld the ruling. He also said "a federal court in Texas struck down the Texas law that banned people between the ages of 18 and 20 from buying a handgun." "So, it is clear that the gun control law that they’re seeking in Uvalde, as much as they may want it, it has already been ruled to be unconstitutional," said Abbott, a former Texas attorney general and Texas Supreme Court justice. PolitiFact Texas took "AR" in Abbott’s claim to mean AR-15, a type of semi-automatic weapon. For this fact-check, we looked at whether the rulings pertained to AR-15s, or more broadly semi-automatic weapons. PolitiFact Texas spoke with experts and found that Abbott spoke broadly on those court rulings, and there has been no Supreme Court ruling addressing the constitutionality of raising the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. The rulings Abbott referred to Abbott’s office said these are the court rulings Abbott had in mind: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen in the U.S. Supreme Court, decided in June; Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. v. McCraw in Texas, decided in August; and Jones v. Bonta in California, decided in May and vacated in September. Steven Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, said, at most, only one case out of the three was apparently relevant to his claim, but that ruling was vacated in September. The Supreme Court case has nothing to do with age limits on gun purchases, and the Texas ruling pertains to ages but not semi-automatic rifles. The California 9th Circuit ruling, now vacated, addressed age limits to purchase semi-automatic weapons, including AR-15s. The Supreme Court case examined what kind of proof is required for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. It decided in June that the state of New York cannot require proof of "proper cause" to carry, or "a special need for self-defense." The case dealt with a narrow question — what proof is required to carry a handgun in public, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law Andrew Willinger, said. In the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the second step in a two-step legal test developed by the lower courts for gun law cases. This framework will be used to determine constitutionality in future Second Amendment court cases. For the first step, the Supreme Court said the burden is on the government to come up with historical gun laws that are similar to the types of law at issue in a case. The test's second step was weighing the government’s justification for the law and the burdens the law imposed, Willinger said. Justifications could include, for example, empirical studies that the law in question makes the state safer. "I think it’s fair to say that Bruen is probably the most originalist or history-focused decision that the court has issued, maybe ever. It’s a real departure from what the lower courts were doing before," Willinger said. In the second case Abbott mentioned, a Texas federal judge ruled in August that the state law prohibiting 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds from legally carrying a handgun violates the U.S. Constitution and cannot be enforced. That federal judge said the Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and people is taken to mean "the whole people," the judge wrote. This means 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are included. The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 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 The California 9th Circuit case addressed the question of raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons. It had struck down the law that restricted 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing semi-automatic rifles, while keeping the law requiring a hunting license for a young adult to purchase a long gun. This case, however, was not decided with the new framework from the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court case was decided before this case, Willinger said. The 9th Circuit had made its decision in May. Abbott spoke in August. Then, in September, the 9th Circuit vacated the decision. It remanded the case to the district court level to apply the framework from the Supreme Court case, Willinger noted. The decision had not been remanded when Abbott made his claim. "I think it would be a fair guess to say that the law is still in some jeopardy, but we just don’t know and it’s going to take some time for the case to work its way all the way back up," Willinger said. In a separate case, a federal judge found Florida’s law restricting the purchase of semi-automatic rifles to people 21 years and older to be constitutional. Abbott did not mention that ruling, which the National Rifle Association is appealing. Experts say the court decisions are narrower than Abbott implied Willinger said it’s tough to say raising the minimum age is unconstitutional based on three rulings and no Supreme Court decision to settle the question. "As you get fewer decisions on point, and at lower levels of the court system, it becomes very difficult to say it is clear or unclear that something’s unconstitutional. It’s just sort of an open question," Willinger said. "I think when you say it’s clear something is unconstitutional, generally that would mean the Supreme Court has ruled on the specific question and made a decision one way or the other," Willinger added. Adam Winkler, a University of California, Los Angeles School of Law professor, told PolitiFact Texas that Abbott’s claim was wrong because the Supreme Court did not say anything about age restrictions on concealed carry. "Also, while two cases have recently held 18-to-21 year restrictions unconstitutional, other courts have upheld such restrictions," Winkler wrote in an email. "The 5th Circuit did so a few years back in a case that was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices allowed that ruling to stand. The justices have changed since then, but it remains to be seen if 18-21 age restrictions are truly unconstitutional." Esther Sanchez-Gomez, a senior litigation attorney at the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, said Abbott’s claim is inaccurate. The center advocates for gun legislation. She said in an email that the decisions are narrower than Abbott implies. "It is limited to the right to apply for a permit to carry (a) handgun in certain public spaces," Sanchez-Gomez said in an email regarding the Texas ruling. "The court decided nothing about the constitutionality of restrictions on types of especially-lethal long guns, like ARs." For the New York concealed carry ruling, she noted that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment right is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The court wrote there is historical tradition behind prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons while the Second Amendment protects the possession of weapons in common use. "In short, Gov. Abbott is misinterpreting jurisprudence in order to attempt to defend his refusal to support common sense gun safety regulations," Sanchez-Gomez wrote. Our ruling Abbott claimed that three court rulings since May 2022 "have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to ban someone between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to buy an AR." Only one of the cases Abbott cited directly addressed limiting purchases of semi-automatic rifles. A California judge ruled the age restriction was constitutional and an appeals court disagreed, before vacating the ruling after Abbott’s statement. But Abbott also didn’t mention a case in Florida that is being appealed, in which a judge found the age limit did pass constitutional muster. Furthermore, the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on an age limit. We rate Abbott’s claim Mostly Fals

“With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more. California Together, a campaign led by religious and anti-abortion groups, is hoping to persuade voters to reject a ballot measure that would cement the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. The group is warning that taxpayers will be on the hook for an influx of abortion seekers from out of state. Proposition 1 was placed on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled legislature in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. If passed, it would protect an individual’s "fundamental right to choose to have an abortion," along with the right to birth control. California Together’s website says: "With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more." The campaign raised similar cost concerns in a voter information guide that will be mailed out to every registered voter ahead of the Nov. 8 election. One prominent argument is that Proposition 1 will turn California into a "sanctuary state" for abortion seekers, including those in late-term pregnancy — and that would be a drain on tax dollars. We decided to take a closer look at those eye-catching statements to see how well they hold up when broken down. We reached out to California Together to find out the basis for its arguments against the measure. The campaign cited an analysis from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, which estimated before Roe was overturned that the number of women ages 15 to 49 whose nearest abortion provider would be in California would increase 3,000% in response to state abortion bands. The Guttmacher analysis said most of California’s out-of-state patients would likely come from Arizona because it’s within driving distance. California Together does not cite a specific cost to taxpayers for the measure. Rather, it points to millions of dollars the state has already allocated to support abortion and reproductive services as an indication of how much more the state could spend if the proposed amendment passes. Sources indicate that people are already coming to the state for abortion services. Jessica Pinckney, executive director of Oakland-based Access Reproductive Justice, which provides financial and emotional support for people who have abortions in California, said the organization has experienced an increase in out-of-state calls even before the high court ruled in June. Pinckney anticipates handling more cases as more states restrict abortion — regardless of Proposition 1’s outcome. Will it cost taxpayers millions? In its fiscal year 2022-23 budget, California committed more than $200 million to expanding reproductive health care services, including $20 million for a fund to cover the travel expenses of abortion seekers, regardless of what state they live in. Once it’s up and running in 2023, the fund will provide grants to nonprofit organizations that help women with transportation and lodging. However, none of this spending is connected to Proposition 1, said Carolyn Chu, chief deputy legislative analyst at the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. It’s already allocated in the budget and will be doled out next year regardless of what happens with the ballot measure. In the end, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found "no direct fiscal effect" if Proposition 1 passes because Californians already have abortion protections. And people traveling from out of state don’t qualify for state-subsidized health programs, such as Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, Chu added in an interview. "If people were to travel to California for services, including abortion, that does not mean they’re eligible for Medi-Cal," she said. Still, Proposition 1 opponents see the cost argument playing out differently. Richard Temple, a campaign strategist for California Together, said a "no" vote will send lawmakers a mandate to stop the support fund. "Defeat Prop. 1, and you send a loud signal to the legislature and to the governor that you don't want to pay for those kinds of expenses for people coming in from out of state," Temple said. What about an influx of abortion seekers? A key element of California Together’s argument is pegged to the idea that California will become a sanctuary state for abortion seekers. Opponents assert that Proposition 1 opens the door to a new legal interpretation of the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. Currently, that law allows abortion up to the point of viability, usually around the 24th week of pregnancy, or later to protect the life or health of the patient. 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 An argument made in the voter guide against the constitutional amendment is that it would allow all late-term abortions "even when the mother’s life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb." Because the proposition says the state can’t interfere with the right to abortion, opponents argue that current law restricting most abortions after viability will become unconstitutional. They contend that without restrictions, California will draw thousands, possibly millions, of women in late-term pregnancy. Statistically, that’s unlikely. The state doesn’t report abortion figures, but nationwide only 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Whether there will be a new interpretation if Proposition 1 passes is up for debate. University of California, Los Angeles law professor Cary Franklin, who specializes in reproductive rights, said that just because Proposition 1 establishes a general right to abortion doesn’t mean all abortion would become legal. Constitutional language is always broad, and laws and regulations can add restrictions to those rights. For example, she said, the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms, but laws and regulations restrict children from purchasing guns. "The amendment doesn’t displace any of that law," Franklin said. But current law was written and interpreted under California’s current constitution, which doesn’t have an explicit right to abortion, said Tom Campbell, a former legislator who now teaches law at Chapman University. If Proposition 1 passes, courts might interpret things differently. "Any restriction imposed by the state on abortion would have to be reconsidered," Campbell said. The Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that "whether a court might interpret the proposition to expand reproductive rights beyond existing law is unclear." California voters will soon have their say. Polling has found widespread support for the constitutional amendment. An August survey by the Berkeley IGS Poll found 71% of voters would vote "yes" on Proposition 1. A September survey by the Public Policy Institute of California pegged support at 69%. Our ruling California Together warns voters: "With Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more." Proposition 1 would protect an individual’s "fundamental right to choose to have an abortion." It could lead to more people going to California for abortion services, but that’s already happening, even before voters decide on the measure. Also, Proposition 1 doesn’t allocate any new spending. So, the $20 million state fund to cover travel expenses for abortion seekers would exist regardless of whether it is adopted. Bottom line: a nonpartisan analyst found there will be no direct fiscal impact to the state and out-of-state residents don’t qualify for state-subsidized health programs. It’s speculative that Proposition 1 would expand abortion rights beyond what’s currently allowed or that the state would allocate more money for out-of-state residents. Because the statement contains some truth but ignores critical facts to give a different impression, we rate the statement Mostly False.

Martha’s Vineyard "used the military to deport every last illegal migrant from their island. Two days after about 50 Venezuelan immigrants were dropped off unannounced at Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, they were on the move again. Local officials, residents and community groups provided shelter and food to the immigrants who arrived on Sept. 14, but they were taken Sept. 16 to nearby Joint Base Cape Cod, a military base with dormitory-style housing, for longer-term shelter. That led some on social media to allege that the U.S. military was used to "deport" the immigrants off the wealthy island. But that is not what happened. The military wasn’t involved in their transport to the base, and the immigrants went there voluntarily, according to a civil rights group representing many of them. "Martha’s Vineyard set a beautiful example for the nation," read a screenshot of a tweet shared in a Sept. 18 Instagram post. "They used the military to deport every last illegal migrant from their island in less than 48 hours. The entire nation should emulate Martha’s Vineyard." "Perfect analysis," read a caption on the post. A similar post said "Martha’s Vineyard showed Texas and Arizona that it’s OK to use the military to remove" immigrants. Another claimed 300 National Guard members helped move the migrants off the island to "detain" them at the military base. The 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 Facebook.) The claim that the military deported the Venezuelans from Martha's Vineyard is wrong on two counts. First, deportation is carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, not the military. It involves sending people back to their home countries, not to another town within the U.S. Second, the military was not involved in removing the immigrants from the island. It was a plan put in place by Massachusetts’ Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The immigrants were first flown to Martha’s Vineyard from Texas by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey made similar moves in election-year efforts likely meant to draw attention to an influx of migrants coming across the U.S. southern border and Biden’s administration. All three governors are Republican. Martha’s Vineyard, a tiny island off the coast of Massachusetts, is home to about 17,000 yearly residents. About 200,000 people spend their summers there, according to the island’s Chamber of Commerce. About 63% of its homes are owned by people who live there seasonally, including former President Barack Obama. But the wealthy island is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis and not built to handle the sudden arrival of dozens of immigrants, according to Lisa Belcastro, the island’s homeless shelter coordinator. The Washington Post reported that the housing situation is so bad, even doctors can’t afford to live there anymore. There is no year-round homeless shelter on the island, according to a Dukes County website, just a partnership with a local nonprofit. Baker’s office announced the immigrants’ voluntary and temporary move to Joint Base Cape Cod, also in Massachusetts. "The island communities are not equipped to provide sustainable accommodation, and state officials developed a plan to deliver a comprehensive humanitarian response," the state said in a Sept. 16 news release. The migrants "will have access to the services they need going forward, and Joint Base Cape Cod is well-equipped to serve these needs," the release 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 The facility has been designated by the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, or MEMA, as an emergency shelter. It’s been used to house Louisiana residents fleeing Hurricane Katrina, and for medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The site can accommodate families and has space for access to basic health care and legal services. The governor’s office on Sept. 18 said available services also include interpreters and case management to help immigrants access temporary housing. This video provied by the Massachusetts National Guard shows the dorms where immigrants will be staying at Joint Base Cape Cod. The MEMA is leading the efforts to provide food, shelter and services to the immigrants, and coordinating with state and local agencies and nonprofits, Baker’s office said in a statement. Included in those efforts are up to 125 members of the Massachusetts National Guard, who were activated to assist. A MEMA spokesman referred us to the information from the governor’s office and to a local NPR station’s report that quoted Massachusetts state Rep. Dylan Fernandes describing the military presence at the Cape Cod base as minimal. "In the areas where the families are, it's almost entirely just caseworkers — very few people in uniform," Fernandes told the NPR affiliate, CAI. The immigrants were taken from Martha’s Vineyard by charter bus, then ferry, to the base. Videos of their journey do not show military members involved in the transport. That’s because at no point was the military involved in the journey, said Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director of the group Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston. "Absolutely not. I personally escorted the migrants from the church in Martha's Vineyard to the base in Cape Cod. Lawyers for Civil Rights was involved in every step of the process, and it was seamlessly carried out with dignity for each individual and child," said Espinoza-Madrigal. "They are now safely in the base, where they can have faster and easier access to resources and support." Espinoza-Madrigal also said the immigrants are not being detained there. "They are 100% voluntarily at the base," he said. Lawyers for Civil Rights said on its website that it is representing more than 30 of the immigrants, and it is also pushing for legal action against DeSantis and others, accusing them of using false pretenses to lure the immigrants onto a plane to cross state lines. Our ruling An Instagram post Martha’s Vineyard "used the military to deport every last illegal migrant from their island." That is not what happened. The Massachusetts governor, in coordination with state and local officials, offered to move the migrants, on a voluntary basis, to Joint Base Cape Cod, a military base that’s also one of the state’s designated emergency shelters. The site has the space to care for the immigrants that Martha’s Vineyard does not. The military was not involved in the voluntary transport. In the context of immigration, a deportation refers to the removal of a person from the United States, not the relocation of people within the country. We rate this claim False. Related: What we know about DeSantis flying migrants to Martha's Vineyard In Context: What a Martha’s Vineyard homeless shelter coordinator said about migrant housi

Nostradamus “accurately predicted Queen Elizabeth II’s passing. Nostradamus was a French astrologer who lived in the 1500s. But his book, "Les Prophéties," has transcended time and is often credited with predicting historical events — including the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II. A Sept. 15 Facebook video said Nostradamus "accurately predicted Queen Elizabeth II’s passing." "When Queen Elizabeth passed away on Sept. 8, just a day later Nostradamus’ predictions of her passing resurfaced," a narrator in the video said. 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 Facebook.) We reviewed an English translation of Les Prophiétes, but found no direct reference to the death of any queen. Instead, the prediction came from author Mario Reading’s 2005 book, "Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies for the Future." The book says Reading, who lived in England, Germany and the South of France and died in 2017, drew the prediction about the queen’s death from Nostradamus’ passage that read: 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 "Because they disapproved of his divorce A man, who, later, they considered unworthy The people will force out the King of the Islands A man will replace him who never expected to be king." Our ruling A Facebook video says Nostradamus "accurately predicted Queen Elizabeth II’s passing." Nostradamus’s writing did not include a reference to a queen. The prediction came from another author’s interpretation of the philosopher’s writing. We rate this claim False.

Nancy Pelosi “almost burst out into laughter” at the Tsitsernakaberd Armenian Genocide Memorial Complex in Yerevan Following recent fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Armenia, where she visited the Tsitsernakaberd Armenian Genocide Memorial Complex. And during that trip, according to a claim circulating on social media, she tried to fake cry but appeared to laugh instead. "Today, Nancy Pelosi visited the Armenian Genocide Memorial," a Sept. 18 Instagram post said. "She was trying to fake cry, but almost burst into laughter." The post includes a video clip of Pelosi in which she looks emotional with the corners of her mouth upturned. But longer clips of the speaker put this moment in context, and she isn’t laughing. 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 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 RadioFreeEurope published footage of Pelosi on Sept. 17 at the hilltop monument in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, which honors the nearly 1.5 million Armenians who died during World War I. In 2019, under then-President Donald Trump, Congress passed legislation formally designating the killings as a genocide. More than a year later, the Biden administration became the first U.S. presidential administration to also recognize the genocide. RELATED VIDEO Pelosi "wiped away tears as she laid flowers" at the memorial, RadioFreeEurope reported. In the video, she can be seen dabbing her nose and eyes, which appear wet with tears. She is not seen laughing. In a statement Pelosi issued the day after visiting the memorial, she said that she and other members of the congressional delegation who joined her on the trip "prayed for the 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children murdered in the genocide. Congress is committed to ensuring that the truth of the genocide is never erased." We rate claims that she was False.

Photo shows “Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles” bowing to Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I Amid renewed criticism of the British Empire’s history of colonizing countries in Africa, a recent Facebook post casts Queen Elizabeth II in a more subservient light. "QUEEN Elizabeth and prince Charles both bow to the KING of KINGS selassie I the first," the caption on the Sept. 18 post says, describing an image of a man and woman bowing before Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I and his wife, Empress Menen Asfaw. 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.) Elizabeth died Sept. 8 at age 96. The photo in this Facebook post was taken in 1955 by Alfred Eisenstaedt. A description of the image in Getty Images’ collection says it shows "Haile Selassie and his wife greeting guests" in Ethiopia that year. The guests aren’t identified. But they aren’t Elizabeth and her son, the now-King Charles III, who would have been about 7 years old when the picture was taken. 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 queen and her husband, Prince Philip, visited Selassie a decade later, in February 1965. It was "the first formal call on Ethiopia by any British monarch," The Associated Press reported at the time. Getty has photos of Elizabeth and Selassie from that trip. By then, the empress in the photo in the Facebook post had died. We rate claims the photo shows Elizabeth and Charles False.

“This year, it's going to be over $1.5 trillion (that we’ve) reduced the debt. During a Sept. 18 interview with CBS’ "60 Minutes," President Joe Biden touted his administration’s efforts to rein in federal debt. Biden’s comments came in an exchange with interviewer Scott Pelley, who asked what the president would do to prevent a recession and how he’d expand the nation’s economy. Biden said the economy was already growing, and cited gains in manufacturing jobs. Biden also said he’d work to "give hardworking people a break," pointing to legislation he signed that would allow Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers, which is expected to reduce costs for beneficiaries. Then, Biden turned to the federal deficit and debt. "We’ve also reduced the debt and reduced the debt by $350 billion my first year," Biden said. "This year, it's going to be over $1.5 trillion (that we’ve) reduced the debt." Biden has a point that his administration has presided over smaller deficits than were seen under the Trump administration, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. But Biden’s remark leaves out important context. The debt had risen because of a temporary phase of unusual federal spending. First, a refresher about deficits and debt. The federal deficit is determined by subtracting federal spending from federal revenue, primarily tax collections. If revenue exceeds spending, there’s a surplus; if spending exceeds revenue, there’s a deficit. (There hasn’t been a federal surplus since 2001.) Meanwhile, the national debt amounts to the accumulation of all past deficits, minus any surpluses. The national debt lets the federal government pay for programs and services for Americans even if it does not immediately have the money. This debt lets the government fulfill its constitutional duty, stated in the preamble, to "provide for the common defense," and "promote the general welfare." Now, let’s look at the current figures for the deficit and the debt. The Congressional Budget Office’s most recent estimate projects a 2022 deficit of about $944 billion. That’s much less than $2.7 trillion seen the previous year. This decrease of more than $1.7 trillion is in line with the "over $1.5 trillion" figure Biden cited in the interview (although, officially, this number is a moving target until the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30). Nevertheless, this figure deserves an asterisk. This year’s projected decline is larger than any previous one-year reduction in the deficit because of an extraordinary historical occurrence: the coronavirus pandemic and the unprecedented government response. During 2020 and 2021, the federal government’s spending skyrocketed as both the Trump and Biden administrations tried to ease the pandemic’s economic blow. Moves included enacting stimulus payments, extending unemployment insurance, instituting business operation grants and increasing public health spending. From 2019 to 2020, federal spending rose by 47%, and then remained at a similar level in 2021, CBO data shows. 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 Because tax revenue didn’t keep pace with spending, the deficit surged in 2020 and 2021. The deficit rose from $983 billion before the pandemic in 2019 to about $3.1 trillion in 2020 and $2.8 trillion in 2021. Vaccines and therapies have cut the risks associated with COVID-19, and the economy has opened up again. Spending programs passed earlier in the pandemic began expiring this year, meaning federal outlays have declined. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit public policy group, has estimated that more than 80% of the $1.7 trillion reduction in the deficit can be explained by expiring or shrinking COVID-19 relief. The White House argued in an exchange with PolitiFact that revenues have also risen because of improvements in the economy. The White House also said the 2022 deficit as a share of GDP is a few tenths of a percentage point lower than it was expected to be before passage of the American Rescue Plan, Biden’s coronavirus and economic relief bill that was enacted in early 2021. In absolute dollars, the current deficit is much more in line with what it was in pre-pandemic 2019. "If the pandemic is over, as the president said in the interview, then it stands to reason that pandemic spending would be down as well," said Steve Ellis, president of the nonprofit budget group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The second caveat for Biden’s remark is that the federal debt is not lower today than it had been, but rather that it has not gone up as fast as it would have otherwise. Since Biden was sworn in Jan. 20, 2021, the publicly held federal debt has risen about $2.6 trillion on his watch, to almost $24.3 trillion from $21.6 trillion. Without the reduced deficits Biden referred to, the federal debt would have been higher than $24.3 trillion, probably $1.7 trillion higher, if we use CBO’s estimate. "You can reduce the rate of growth, as is the case here," Ellis said, referring to the national debt, but as long as there is a deficit, then there is going to be an increase." Our ruling Biden said, "This year, it's going to be over $1.5 trillion (that we’ve) reduced the debt" The latest deficit projection does show the national debt is about $1.7 trillion lower now than it was in 2021. But this statement needs context. This large decrease is because of an unusual historical circumstance, the expiration of large, temporary spending programs related to coronavirus pandemic relief. And the federal debt is not lower today than it had been. Instead, it has not gone up as fast as it would have otherwise. We rate the statement Half Tru

“Supreme Court just voted to ban condoms. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which protected the federal right to have an abortion, on June 24, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates raised concerns that the decision could also lead to restrictions around contraceptives. Some on social media, however, made unfounded claims that it’s already happened. "Supreme Court just voted to ban condoms," a Sept. 18 Instagram post claimed. 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.) But the Supreme Court is in recess, and has not issued any rulings that ban the use of condoms or other contraceptives, based on a review of Supreme Court opinions and news articles. The Supreme Court’s term begins the first Monday in October and continues throughout the year. The court is typically in recess starting late June or early July until early October, when the new term begins. 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 Every year, the court is asked to review more than 7,000 new cases during its term, and it accepts 100 to 150. During its 2021 term, the court issued 66 opinions. While no action has been taken, at least one Supreme Court justice has called for revisiting a past ruling related to contraception. In a solo opinion for the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should review, among other precedents, the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case that established the right for married couples to use contraception. (Single people were granted that right in a separate case in 1972.) However, in the majority opinion for the case, Justice Samuel Alito stated that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." In the dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan lambasted Thomas’ call for reconsideration of past rulings. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed the "Supreme Court just voted to ban condoms." The court has not taken any actions to restrict access to contraception, including condoms. We rate this claim Fals

All banks will soon have to turn over all coins to federal government ahead of pivot to using only electronic transactions A Facebook post claims all banks in the United States will soon be compelled to turn over all physical currency to the federal government because of an imminent transition to a universal electronic-only payment protocol. "We were told all the banks will soon begin to turn in their coins to the Gov't and will no longer be available to the public or to a business," the Sept. 13 post reads. The post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In a review of all public announcements and news releases published in 2022 by the Federal Reserve, we found no evidence of a program mandating coins and other physical currency be ceded to the feds for liquidation. The Federal Reserve is rolling out FedNow Service, an instant payment pilot program, that is expected to be made more widely available to banks and consumers by mid-2023, the agency said Aug. 29. Pilot participation is limited to about 120 financial institutions. FedNow Service was first announced in August 2019. 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 "Through financial institutions participating in the FedNow Service, businesses and individuals will be able to send and receive instant payments at any time of day, and recipients will have full access to funds immediately, giving them greater flexibility to manage their money and make time-sensitive payments," the agency said at the time. By eliminating the delay between when money is deposited or transferred and when it is available for use, the program aims to particularly help Americans on fixed incomes and those living paycheck to paycheck, one Fed official said when it was first announced. There is no government mandate for financial institutions or private individuals to use this service. And there is no indication that participating banks will have to turn over their coins to the federal government. We also found no evidence to suggest individuals will have to liquidate physical currency to use the service. Earlier this month, PolitiFact debunked a similar post that claimed President Joe Biden signed an executive order that implemented a digital currency and extended power to the government to electronically control it. Our ruling A Sept. 13 Facebook post claimed without evidence that all American banks will soon have to turn over all coins to the federal government ahead of transitioning to a universal electronic-only payment protocol. The post appears to be based on out-of-context information about an instant payment program, called FedNow Service, which is in the pilot stages and expected to be more widely available in mid-2023. The program is not mandated and participating banks don’t have to hand over their coins to the federal government. We rate this claim Fals

Under Kathy Hoffman, “student test scores plummeted. Even before COVID, under the current regime, over half of Arizona students were not proficient in reading or math. School test scores are being used to score points in the race for Arizona’s top education seat. Challenger Tom Horne, a Republican who held the job over a decade ago, said Democratic incumbent Kathy Hoffman has failed to focus on the basics. "Under the current regime, the focus has been on everything except academics," Horne tweeted Aug. 21. "Student learning, and therefore student test scores, plummeted. Even before COVID, under the current regime, over half of Arizona students were not proficient in reading or math." Hoffman took office in January 2019. That gave her about 14 months before COVID closed schools and put students into online learning. We looked at whether test scores fell on her watch, and how they compared with previous years. Horne fails to include significant context, in particular, the outside factors played a role in academic proficiency. We reached out to Horne and he pointed us to the AZMerit results. Pre-COVID, Arizona’s test scores changed little under Hoffman When Hoffman became superintendent in 2019, 42% of Arizona students passed the AZMerit for both its reading and math sections. That was four months after she took office and was little changed from the preceding years. Arizona Department of Education records show that the passing rate for sections of the AZMerit dating back to 2015 ranged from 38% to 41% before Hoffman. !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"); The state began using the AZMerit test in 2015. In April 2022, the state switched to the Arizona's Academic Standards Assessment. 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 The COVID factor Standardized testing in Arizona takes place in the spring. Hoffman had been superintendent for four months when students were tested in her first year. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered schools. The state canceled standardized testing that year. Testing resumed in 2021 and the damage to test scores was striking. For math proficiency, the percentage had fallen from 42% in 2019 to 31% in 2021. For reading, the percentage fell from 42% to 38%. Among education researchers, there is no debate that COVID-19 upended student learning across the board. The latest national survey found that the country had the "largest average score decline in reading since 1990, and the first-ever score decline in mathematics." In Arizona, scores recovered modestly in 2022. The passing rate for math rose two percentage points to 33%, and for reading, scores went up three points to 41%. Our ruling Horne said that under Hoffman, "student test scores plummeted. Even before COVID, under the current regime, over half of Arizona students were not proficient in reading or math." Hoffman had been in her position four months when testing took place. At the end of the 2018-19 school year, 42% of Arizona students had achieved a passing score on the state’s standardized reading tests. That was higher than the year prior, and indicative of steady improvement since 2015. After schools started testing again following COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, student performance did drop. Math scores fell by nine points and reading by four. But school systems nationwide saw similar declines in student performance. Horne presents statistics to put Hoffman in a poor light, but he leaves out significant context. We rate this claim Mostly False.

Image shows a Rebekah Jones campaign event U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., posted two photos side-by-side on Facebook that he suggested showed a stark difference between support for his re-election and support for his Democratic challenger. "Gaetz vs. Jones campaign events," Gaetz wrote in the caption on the Sept. 10 Facebook post. One image showed a room full of people, some holding "Keep Gaetz fighting" signs. It was taken at a ticketed event Gaetz hosted in July in Navarre, Florida, as part of his "Back Our Troops Tour" with former Trump adviser Kash Patel. The other photo showed a booth draped with a tablecloth promoting "Rebekah Jones for Congress." Jones is a former Florida Department of Health data analyst. The sole person in that image has their head down on the table. Gaetz also shared the post on Twitter. We found his comparison misleads by ignoring critical facts. The photo showing Jones' table was taken Sept. 10 at the Emerald Coast Holistic Health Expo, a convention dedicated to holistic wellness and environmental sustainability. Jones said she attended the event with her son in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The expo's website listed Jones as an exhibitor. 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 Jones disputed Gaetz's characterization that the photo showed a "campaign event" and said on her campaign site that she had stepped away from the booth while her son, who has autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and anxiety, had a quiet moment to himself following a period of overstimulation. "My 12-year-old son is autistic," Jones wrote. "He still struggles with social cues and limits, and being in public is not something he's entirely comfortable with just yet. He finally came out for once, and Matt Gaetz attacked him." Scott Chase, the Emerald Coast Holistic Health Expo’s owner, confirmed that Jones participated at the event as an exhibitor. Chase said Gaetz used an "out-of-context moment" to make a political statement. "This was not a political campaign event for anyone or any political party," Chase told PolitiFact. "She or Gaetz could have registered as an exhibitor, and neither would have been refused." When we asked Gaetz's campaign about the claim, a staff member pointed out the "big campaign banner" for Jones in the photo. Although Jones attended the wellness convention as a congressional candidate, those attending were not there specifically to hear from Jones or to show their support for her candidacy. Jones did not host the event, nor was it held on her behalf. Gaetz's claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False

Then-Vice President Mike Pence "seized power" from President Donald Trump and undertook "a coup" when he called on federal agencies to stop the Jan. 6 Capitol riot Mark Finchem, the Republican running for Arizona Secretary of State, claims former Vice President Mike Pence "seized power" from President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, and that Pence’s actions amounted to a "coup." Finchem claimed that testimony by U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., supported his point. He said that during a House select committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Cheney said it was Pence, and not Trump, who contacted the defense secretary and other federal officials. "Mike Pence seized power over an existing president. He was not president. Donald Trump was still president at that moment," Finchem said in a speech to United Patriots Arizona, a group that says it supports more freedom and less government. Finchem spoke to the group in July, but his comments resurfaced in news reports in September. Finchem continued: "Liz Cheney just outed him and I think in doing so reveals that she was complicit. Pence had no authority to order the DOD, (Department of Homeland Security) or (Department of Justice) around. Zero, zip, nada. How long has he been ordering those folks around? Well apparently from Jan 6 to Jan. 20. Ladies and gentlemen, that's a coup. He had no authority to do so." When the mob of Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol, Pence communicated with military leaders to secure the Capitol and protect Congress members who were there to certify the electoral votes. But as vice president of the United States, president of the U.S. Senate and a member of the National Security Council, Pence’s actions were within his power and purview. It doesn’t amount to a coup by the former vice president, according to experts on national security. Finchem is running against Democrat Adrian Fontes, a former Maricopa County elections official. Finchem is part of a national coalition of secretary of state candidates who deny that Joe Biden won the presidency in 2020. We contacted Finchem’s campaign and received no response. Pence’s actions Jan. 6 Here is how Pence’s actions unfolded on Jan. 6: Pence arrived at the Capitol around 12:26 p.m. for the counting of the electoral votes. Shortly before 2 p.m. law enforcement declared that a riot was underway. Some pro-Trump rioters chanted, "Hang Mike Pence." Shortly before 2:30 p.m. the Secret Service took Pence from the House chamber to his office. Pence refused to leave the Capitol and was moved to the basement. What we know about Pence’s actions that afternoon comes from testimony during a House oversight committee hearing in 2021 and Jan. 6 House select committee hearings in 2022: Cheney said: "You will hear that Donald Trump never picked up the phone that day to order his administration to help. This is not ambiguous. He did not call the military. His secretary of defense received no order. He did not call his attorney general. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. Mike Pence did all of those things; Donald Trump did not." 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 U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff: "There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. …To Secretary Miller, ‘Get the military down here, get the (National) Guard down here, put down this situation,’ etc." Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller said: "The vice president is not in the chain of command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there." Miller said he notified Pence of planned military and law enforcement mobilizations. Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen testified that he spoke with Pence to update him on what the department was doing to assist. Rosen spoke again with Pence and other officials in the evening to address when Congress could reassemble. Pence’s contacts with federal officials did not amount to a coup A coup is shorthand for "coup d’état," a French phrase meaning "an overthrow of government." A coup is carried out beyond the bounds of legality, and although violence is part of many coups, is it not an essential element. Experts on national security said Pence’s actions on Jan. 6 did not amount to a coup. A vice president is not in the military chain of command and therefore can’t issue a formal order to the military unless the president has been incapacitated, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who worked as a White House security adviser during President George W. Bush’s administration. "It is appropriate for the vice president, as a member of the National Security Council, to consult with the team about an unfolding crisis and make recommendations for how the various principals should use their delegated powers," Feaver said. Unless Trump ordered military leaders not to use their delegated powers to rescue Congress from the rioters, he continued, "then there does not appear to be anyone grossly overstepping their authority here." Pence did not seize the presidency or its powers, said Dakota S. Rudesill, an expert on national security law and policy at Ohio State University "Trump may have been inactive as president for most of Jan. 6, but he was still the lawful president," said Rudesill, who served in the national intelligence director’s office during the Obama administration. "I think it was certainly within the rights of the vice president or anybody else with a senior position to say, ‘In my opinion, we need to urgently do x and y.’" Pence’s actions that day fulfilled his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, said Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Our ruling Finchem said Pence "seized power" from Trump and undertook "a coup" when he called on federal agencies for assistance on Jan. 6. Pence spoke with military or security leaders on Jan. 6 to get help securing the Capitol. As vice president of the United States, president of the U.S. Senate and a member of the National Security Council, it was within the scope of Pence’s power to talk to leaders who could defend the Capitol against domestic enemies. That does not equate to Pence seizing power from Trump or orchestrating an overthrow of the government. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! RELATED: Jan. 6 hearing piles on evidence: Pence didn’t have power to change 2020 election RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Jan. 6 RELATED: A coalition of ‘stop the steal’ Republicans aims to take control of US elections. QAnon is helpi

“The Simpsons” predicted Queen Elizabeth II’s 2022 death Here’s a list of things "The Simpsons" didn’t predict, despite social media posts claiming the long-running Matt Groening cartoon series’ prescience: COVID-19, Tom Hanks catching COVID-19, Canada’s trucker convoy protest, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. It’s time to add another prediction to the list: Queen Elizabeth II’s death. A Sept. 15 Facebook post features two animated images of the queen, who died Sept. 8. The first shows her clasping her hands together while Homer Simpson looks on in a courtroom. The second shows her lying in a partially opened casket displaying the words "Elizabeth II 1926-2022." Interspersed with the cartoon images is what appears to be footage of the queen’s eldest son, King Charles III, walking in her funeral procession. 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.) 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 first image, of the queen and Homer, is authentic. A reverse image search brings up multiple stills from the 2003 episode in which Homer crashes a rental car into the queen’s carriage. It also surfaces news stories about the queen’s appearance on the show. According to a Wiki page dedicated to "The Simpsons," Elizabeth has appeared in six episodes, none of which mention her death. We found no evidence elsewhere that she died on the show. This cartoon illustration of the queen in a casket appears to be an alteration of another Simpsonslike cartoon image of former President Donald Trump in a casket. As we noted in a prior fact-check, that image never appeared in "The Simpsons" either. As we did with the faux-Trump image, we rate the claim that the Simpsons predicted Elizabeth’s death Pants on Fire!

“Since 2019, I've successfully lobbied for the funds to add hundreds of school counselors, lowering our student to school counselor ratio by 20%. Demand for student mental health services has grown as educators grapple with the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on kids. Democratic Arizona State Superintendent incumbent Kathy Hoffman said that even before the pandemic, she pressed to place additional counselors in Arizona schools. "Since 2019, I've successfully lobbied for the funds to add hundreds of school counselors, lowering our student to school counselor ratio by 20%," Hoffman tweeted July 28. Did Hoffman raise the number of counselors, and was she the one who pushed for the increase? The record says she did. Hoffman took office in 2019. In the 2018-19 school year, Arizona had 1,262 counselors. The next year, that rose to 1,359 counselors. By 2021, Arizona had 1,552 counselors. This is an increase of 290 counselors in three years. According to the American School Counselors Association, the student-counselor ratio improved from 905 students per counselor in 2018-19 to 716 students per counselor in 2020-21. That’s an improvement of 21%. Richie Taylor, spokesman for the Arizona Department of Education, pointed to Hoffman’s 2019 State of Education speech as proof that she called for additional funding for counselors. 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 "In an era of ballooning classroom sizes, teachers feel unequipped to manage a class of 30 children while also finding the time to provide individualized attention to their students, especially those that are facing depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts," Hoffman said in 2019. "That’s why I am fully supportive of any plan to increase the presence of counselors, social workers, and school psychologists in our schools." Taylor said hiring more counselors was a top priority and the department’s legislative staff worked with the lawmakers to move that forward. Federal COVID relief dollars made staff increases possible. In 2021, using a mix of federal and state money, Hoffman allocated $21.3 million for schools to hire counselors and social workers under the state’s School Safety Grant program. The challenge ahead is the relief funds are temporary. Hoffman is urging lawmakers to fund the School Safety Grant program permanently. Our ruling Hoffman said, "Since 2019, I've successfully lobbied for the funds to add hundreds of school counselors, lowering our student to school counselor ratio by 20%." The numbers back her up. The state hired nearly 300 counselors in the past three years, and the student to counselor ratio improved by about 20%. Hoffman began lobbying for more counselors before the COVID-19 pandemic. We rate this claim True.

A royal guard member collapsed because of the COVID-19 vaccine As a video clip of a royal guard member collapsing by Queen Elizabeth II’s casket on Sept. 14 circulated online the next day, some social media users suggested the incident was connected to the COVID-19 vaccine. "Royal guard collapses during the queen’s funeral on live TV," one Instagram post said. Why the h*ll did this happen?" The post was punctuated with a syringe emoji. "Agree," someone commented. "Booster!" "Fully vaxxed," someone else said. 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.) PolitiFact tried unsuccessfully to reach someone at Buckingham Palace to ask about the post, but there’s no evidence to support the claim that the vaccine caused this royal guard member to fall. 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 queen’s funeral is scheduled for Sept. 19 at Westminster Abbey. In the meantime, her casket is lying in state at Westminster Hall at the Palace of Westminster. The casket is being watched over by royal guard members in ceremonial uniform, who stand still and stolid while keeping vigil. The soldiers rotate every 20 minutes, according to news reports. But those 20-intervals add up — the time standing could total six hours. RELATED VIDEO The guard member’s face-plant drew wide media coverage. The Daily Mail quoted a man who identified himself on social media as a Royal Air Force veteran helping guard the casket. He said that as far as he knew, his colleague recovered shortly after fainting. Hello!, a lifestyle magazine covering royal and celebrity news, reported recently that fainting isn’t uncommon among royal guards. The Daily Express, a British tabloid, wrote in 2011 that the guards are even taught how to faint "to attention." "True grit is displayed by those soldiers who can topple forward face first," the story said. Claims that a guard to the queen’s casket fell because of the COVID-19 vaccine are unfounded. We rate them False.

Photo shows Queen Elizabeth II checking the oil of a car Queen Elizabeth II’s service during World War II as a truck driver and mechanic has been well documented, and a photo shared after her death claims to show the late monarch putting the skills she learned to good use. An image posted Sept. 13 on Facebook appears to show Elizabeth standing over a car, holding its dipstick to check the engine’s oil level. A man next to her wearing a racing suit watches as she works. "Queen Elizabeth with Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason and his 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO," the image’s caption states. Although her time in the military during the war taught Elizabeth how to repair a car’s engine, the woman in that photo isn’t the queen — it’s an impersonator. 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 Facebook.) Alison Jackson is a British artist known for taking photographs featuring celebrity look-alikes — including the queen. 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 photo shared on Facebook was taken from Jackson’s "Real Or Not" series, which "plays with the notion you can’t tell what is real and what is not by mixing the real celebrity with the fake." Several photos of the "queen" are featured in the series, including one in which she’s seen changing a car’s tire and checking the oil. That does actually appear to be Mason, however. The garage featured in the photo appears similar to one Mason owns. He has also been photographed in the same racing suit he's wearing in the photo and with the same car. Mason and Jackson were photographed together in 2011. Our ruling A Facebook post shared a photo claiming to show Queen Elizabeth II checking a car engine’s oil. Although the queen has experience as a mechanic from her service in World War II, the woman in the photo is an impersonator. The photo was staged by a British artist as part of an art series featuring celebrity impersonators. We rate this claim False

Blake Masters does not support abortion exceptions for rape and incest In an Arizona toss-up race that could determine which political party controls the U.S. Senate, a TV ad brands Republican candidate Blake Masters as an extremist on abortion. Masters opposes abortion "even in the case of rape and incest," says the ad. It’s from two political action committees: VoteVets, a veterans advocacy group; and Senate Majority PAC, which works to elect Democrats to the Senate. The ad features a speaker identified as Hillary, a U.S. Army veteran from Phoenix. "My husband and I both served; he gave his life fighting for our freedom," she says. "It’s offensive to see someone like Blake Masters talking about taking away our rights." The ad shows two clips of Masters. "Absolutely no abortions," he says in one. "You make it illegal, you punish the doctors," he says in the other. Hillary continues: "No abortions, even in the case of rape and incest. That kind of extremism and government control is the opposite of what we fought for. It’s un-American. Blake Masters is wrong for Arizona and he’s wrong for America." The characterization of Masters’ abortion position is mostly on target, based on Masters’ record and statements. Masters has supported a bill introduced Sept. 13 by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would impose a nationwide ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That bill includes exceptions for rape and incest, though it would allow states to enact abortion laws that are more restrictive. Masters also supports measures more restrictive than Graham’s federal bill. Before his primary victory Aug. 3, Masters repeatedly stated support for a federal "personhood" law, which is often viewed as a complete or nearly complete ban on abortion, without exceptions. He has been vague, though, about at what point during a pregnancy such a law would apply. And Masters supports a new Arizona law which will ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Senate Majority PAC cited to PolitiFact those measures to PolitiFact to back up the ad’s claims. Masters softens personhood support Before the August primary, Masters said on his campaign website that he would "support a federal personhood law, ideally a constitutional amendment, that recognizes that unborn babies are human beings that may not be killed." That language was scrubbed from the site Aug. 25, NBC News reported. Masters softened his position after winning the nomination, saying he would back a personhood law that would ban abortion nationally during the third trimester of pregnancy, which begins with the 27th week. However, Masters has also said his shifts did not mean he was abandoning prior positions. 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 "It’s funny, because you change one thing about the website and the media pounces. … I tweak my stump speech week over week, too, but no, I don’t run from or hide from anything I’ve said," he told Arizona radio station KTAR on Sept. 8. "If we change something from time to time, that just reflects a new way that we’re talking about something, but it’s not a backtrack or anything like that." Arizona banning rape, incest exceptions Masters’ campaign website states that he believes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing abortion rights nationally, was a bad decision. (The court overturned Roe on June 24.) The site also said Masters supports abortion laws being decided by states. "I am hopeful we'll soon see a slate of new laws that respect and promote life — the lives of both the mother and the child," the site says. Arizona is attempting to enact much stricter abortion laws or even a ban, using either an old law or the new one. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office asked a court to allow a 1901 law that bans abortion, with no exceptions for rape or incest, to take effect. A ruling is expected after Sept. 20. Meanwhile, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a law that will take effect Sept. 24 that criminalizes performing an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The governor says the law he signed would supersede the 1901 law, but the state’s Republican attorney general, Mark Brnovich, has said the 1901 law is enforceable. Masters said he does not support the 1901 law, but does support the new law. Asked to respond to the ad, Masters campaign spokesperson Katie Miller pointed us to an Aug. 16 article from Phoenix TV station KPNX. It said a proposed federal personhood law that Masters supports, which bans abortion in the third trimester, does not have a rape and incest exception. Miller noted that Arizona’s new law allows abortion for any reason through 15 weeks. She also argued that Masters has always supported rape and incest exceptions, but cited no statements from him to support this. In Arizona, 94.8% of abortions performed in 2019 were done at 15 weeks of gestation or earlier, according to the latest figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nationally, the figure was 95.7%. Our ruling VoteVets and the Democratic Senate Majority PAC said Masters opposes abortion "even in the case of rape and incest." Masters supports an Arizona law, set to take effect Sept. 24, that allows abortion for any reason through 15 weeks of pregnancy but bans abortion after that, with no exceptions for rape or incest. He also supports a federal personhood law, which is generally viewed as complete or nearly complete ban on abortion. We found no statements from Masters of support for rape and incest exceptions. We rate the statement Mostly True. RELATED: Blake Masters still supports a national abortion ban, but during the third trimester RELATED: Fact-checking Blake Masters: Mark Kelly voted to legalize abortion ‘up until the moment of birth’ RELATED: Fact-checking ads in the 2022 election campaigns RELATED: Fact-checks on abortion RELATED: Many states are looking toward abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, ince

“Mark Kelly voted against the Keystone pipeline, which caused higher gas prices. In the Arizona Senate race, a $1.5 million ad buy accuses Democrat Mark Kelly of worsening pain at the pump. "Mark Kelly voted against the Keystone pipeline, which caused higher gas prices," the ad from the political action committee Saving Arizona said. It also said the Republican candidate Blake Masters, whom Saving Arizona backs, supports the pipeline and "energy independence." The pipeline project, which was terminated in 2021, would have transported crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would then connect with another leg stretching to Gulf Coast refineries. From there, refined petroleum products could be sold either in the U.S. or to foreign buyers. The ad’s statement is flawed, because the Keystone pipeline had no connection to the 2021 rise — and subsequent fall — in gas prices. Even if the pipeline project had continued, it would not have been constructed in time to have any effect on 2021 or 2022 oil production. And if it had been built, it would not have boosted crude oil supplies enough to impact gas prices. The Keystone pipeline-gas price disconnect On his first day in office —Jan. 20, 2021 — President Joe Biden issued an executive order to cancel Keystone XL. No congressional action was involved. Gasoline prices started edging up for consumers before Biden took office, and climbed afterward. But Keystone XL was far from finished — as of January 2021, there were over 1,000 miles of 2,687 total miles of pipeline remaining to be built. Experts said that any impact from the pipeline would have been years away. "The pipeline shutdown has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices," Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, a fuel pricing information and data provider, told PolitiFact in December 2021. "Prices are higher because production has lagged behind, not because there isn't enough pipeline capacity — there is." Another point: Pipelines such as Keystone XL that facilitate the transport of oil don’t necessarily correlate to an increase in oil production. At capacity, Keystone XL could have carried as many as 830,000 barrels of oil a day. But just because the pipeline could have transported that much oil "does not mean that production in Canada would have been 800,000 barrels a day higher than today," Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University told us in August 2021. The pipeline might have simply supplanted other types of transportation, such as tanker trucks, that move oil out of Alberta. Plus, there was no guarantee that the resulting refined petroleum products would have been sold to American gasoline providers, which would be necessary to lower per-gallon prices domestically. The recent downward trend in gas prices further undermines the idea that there’s a link between the Keystone XL pipeline and gas prices. According to Gas Buddy, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline has fallen from about $5 in July to about $3.70 in mid-September. During that period, the Keystone XL pipeline remained unbuilt. Kelly’s votes The ad says Kelly voted against the pipeline. He did. In 2021, on Feb. 4, Feb. 5, and March 6, Kelly voted against amendments or motions that expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline. 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 But context matters. The first two of those votes came as Democrats were passing a budget resolution in advance of the American Rescue Plan Act, a $1.9 trillion spending bill for pandemic relief. Republicans proposed hundreds of amendments, two of which conveyed acceptance of Keystone XL. Those two nay votes by Kelly were "purely symbolic," said congressional scholar Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy group, and professor at George Washington University. "Budget resolutions don't go to the president for a signature and thus never have the force of law," Binder said. In fact, one of the amendments passed, but had no impact on the pipeline’s fate. In contrast, a March proposal could have changed the American Rescue Plan Act to fund approval of the Keystone pipeline. But that motion failed on a 49-50 straight party-line vote, with one Republican not voting. Binder said Republicans went into these votes knowing they would lose. But winning wasn’t the point. "Sending messages back to supporters and voters back home is often the name of the game when you're in the Senate minority," Binder said. And, she added, if the votes make opposing-party lawmakers squirm and take a clear position on a controversial matter, that’s viewed as a plus, too. Our ruling In a campaign ad, Saving Arizona said Kelly "voted against the Keystone pipeline, which caused higher gas prices." Biden stopped additional construction of the pipeline in early 2021, and that did not require congressional action. Kelly later voted against two amendments and one motion that could have restarted construction. But two of those measures lacked the force of law. Even if construction had continued, the project was years from completion and its status had no connection to the rise or fall in gasoline prices. We rate this claim Mostly False. RELATED: No easy answers on reducing U.S. gas prices, despite political ads’ claims RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Why are gas prices going up? RELATED: No evidence that Biden canceling an oil pipeline caused higher U.S. gas prices RELATED: Green energy policies didn’t cause record prices at gasoline pum

"Val Demings supports abortion up until the moment of birth. Access to abortion has become a critical issue in the 2022 midterm elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which federally protected the right to the procedure. In Florida, incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio has tried to cast his Democratic challenger, Rep. Val Demings, as a "pro-abortion radical." "Val Demings supports abortion up until the moment of birth," Rubio's campaign tweeted Sept. 6. The tweet included a photo of Demings and text that said she "supports taxpayer-funded abortions." Val Demings supports abortion up until the moment of birth. pic.twitter.com/2FB0vQjzpe— Team Marco (@TeamMarco) September 6, 2022 Rubio's campaign has tweeted the "until the moment of birth" claim more than five times. But that's not an accurate characterization of Demings' stance. PolitiFact found at least three times when Demings said she supports abortion up to "viability," or when a fetus can survive outside the womb. She also has said she supports abortion after fetal viability if the pregnancy "threatens the health of the woman," and voted for a bill that affirmed that stance. Fetal viability is generally around 24 weeks into a pregnancy, according to the National Library of Medicine. Doctors consider a pregnancy "full term" at 39 weeks. Christian Slater, a Demings campaign spokesperson, told PolitiFact that Rubio is "desperately lying" and that Demings would "fight to make Roe v. Wade law and protect women's constitutional freedoms." Demings' stance on access to abortion At a May 12 event hosted by Ruth's List Florida, a group that says it supports "pro-choice" women running for office, Demings detailed her view on abortion access: "I support abortions up until the point of viability or when it threatens the health of the woman, the mother." Questioned by CBS Miami's Jim Defede in August about what constitutes the "point of viability," Demings said it should be determined by a doctor. She reiterated that position in a Sept. 2 interview with the Miami Herald. "A woman or girl should have the right to an abortion up to the time of viability of the fetus," Demings told the Miami Herald. "I think that women, each woman, each child who may be the victim of abuse, sexual abuse, should be able to sit down with the doctor and let their doctor tell them what the point of viability is." Rubio's Communications Director Elizabeth Gregory told PolitiFact that Demings "voted for abortion up until the moment of birth" when she supported the Women's Health Protection Act. 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 Gregory's comment mischaracterizes the scope of the legislation. It did not explicitly require states to keep abortion legal in all cases past the point of fetal viability. The bill was part of a Democratic push to codify abortion rights ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Demings voted for the legislation in the U.S. House; it failed in the U.S. Senate. The legislation said governments may not prohibit abortion services before fetal viability. It also said abortions after fetal viability are allowed if a provider determines the pregnancy risks the woman's life or health. "That's how far the Women's Health Protection Act goes," said Leila Abolfazli, director of reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "Abortion after viability has to do with a pregnant person's health." Maxwell Mehlman, a law professor and co-director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told PolitiFact in August that physicians already have a legal responsibility to intervene when a patient's life is threatened. "The doctor has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of the patient," Mehlman said. "If they don't, in the most egregious situations, this has led to criminal prosecutions." Most states that limit abortion to a specific gestational stage include an exception for medical emergencies. For example, Florida's abortion law allows abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy when a patient's life is threatened or to prevent "imminent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Abortions at 21 weeks or later are exceedingly rare — such cases account for about 1% of all abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Our ruling Rubio claimed, "Demings supports abortion up until the moment of birth." Demings said at least three times that she supports abortion up to "the point of viability," or when the fetus can survive outside the womb. She also said she supports abortion after fetal viability if the pregnancy "threatens the health of the woman," and voted for a bill that affirmed that stance. Physicians already have a legal responsibility to intervene when a patient's life is at risk. And most states that limit abortion to a specific gestational stage include an exception for medical emergencies. We rate this claim Mostly Fals

If Jeff Bezos’ net worth reaches $1 trillion, “he could literally end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion and he will still have $91.5 billion left. Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is one of the world’s wealthiest people. So wealthy that some social media users claim he could make everyone else a billionaire and still rank among the richest individuals. If Bezos’ net worth reached $1 trillion, a photo shared Sept. 14 on Facebook claimed, "he could literally end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion and he will still have $91.5 billion left." 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 Facebook.) Although sharing is caring, this claim doesn’t calculate Bezos’ wealth distribution correctly. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen this kind of math about Bezos’ wealth. Let’s take a look at these latest numbers. First, the Facebook post assumes Bezos’ wealth amounts to $1 trillion. This is not accurate. As of Sept. 15, Bezos’ net worth was about $149.5 billion, according to Forbes — about $850.5 billion away from trillionaire status. A 2020 analysis conducted by Comparisun, a content platform serving small- and medium-sized businesses, predicted Bezos would become the world’s first trillionaire by 2026. The photo in the Facebook post shows a New York Post tweet referring to this prediction. The claim also assumes there are 7.5 billion people in the world, but the U.S. Census’ world population clock puts the number closer to 7.9 billion as of Sept. 15. Even if Bezos was worth $1 trillion, the claim’s math still doesn’t add up. 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 order for the world’s 7.9 billion people to each receive $1 billion and for Bezos to keep $91.5 billion for himself, the tech mogul would need to be worth more than $7.9 quintillion. $1 billion x 7.9 billion people + $91.5 billion = $7,900,091,500,000,000,000 If the wealth distribution is calculated accurately based on how much money Bezos currently has, every person, including Bezos, would end up with just under $19. $149.5 billion / 7.9 billion people = $18.92 Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that if Bezos’ net worth reached $1 trillion, "he could literally end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion and he will still have $91.5 billion left." This math doesn’t work out. If Bezos shared his wealth of $149.5 billion equally across the globe, each person would receive about $19. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! CORRECTION, Sept. 19, 2022: This fact-check has been updated to fix the numerical version of $7.9 quintillion. The rating is unchanged. RELATED: A claim about distributing Jeff Bezos’ billions gets the math wro

Barack and Michelle Obama are not the real parents of their children The Obamas are no strangers to being the subject of conspiracy theories, including one that their children aren’t theirs. A Sept. 14 Facebook post shared that claim with a collage that shows an image of Malia and Sasha Obama, alongside a photo of another couple. President Barack and former first lady Michelle Obama are pictured at the bottom. "They rented their kids out to two gay pedophiles," text on the post reads. "Anita Blanchard & Martin Nesbitt are the REAL parents of Sasha and Malia." 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 Facebook.) That claim is unfounded, and it’s an old one. It dates to at least 2013, when a blog post asked, "Where are Obama’s daughters’ baby pics and birth records?" and suggested that those items don’t exist. Since then, other blogs and videos have repeated the false claim, citing the 2013 blog post as a source. The claim also has ties to the conspiracy that Michelle Obama is a man. Both of the Obamas have shared images of their daughters as babies on their social media accounts, and wrote about their births in their autobiographies. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 27, 2022 in a post Video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene planted pipe bombs at Republican and Democratic party headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021. By Gabrielle Settles • October 31, 2022 View this post on Instagram A post shared by Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) Happy birthday, Malia! No matter how sophisticated, accomplished, beautiful, and gracious a young woman you’ve become—you’ll always be my baby. And I will always be here to lift you up. pic.twitter.com/feS6ayFDOY— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 4, 2022 Michelle Obama wrote in her memoir that she encountered fertility problems and that she suffered a miscarriage before having Sasha and Malia. She also talked about it in an interview on "Good Morning America" and explained her decision to go through in vitro fertilization to have children. Martin Nesbitt and Dr. Anita Blanchard are longtime friends of the Obamas. They met through Michelle Obama’s brother, Craig Robinson, when Robinson and Nesbitt played for the same basketball team at Princeton University. When Michelle Obama gave birth to her daughters, Blanchard delivered both of them. Our ruling A Facebook post said Barack and Michelle Obama are not the real parents of their children. Both of the Obamas have shared photos of their children as babies, and Michelle Obama detailed her fertility experience in her memoir. There is no evidence to support this ridiculous and frequently debunked claim. We rate it Pants on Fir

“Trump lawyers all quit on him at the same time. Former President Donald Trump’s legal woes have mounted since he left office, including criminal and civil investigations into the Trump Organization. The most recent example is a federal investigation into his handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. A Facebook post claimed his legal team has reached its breaking point. "Trսmp Lawyers ALL QUIT on Him at the SAME TIME," according to the caption on a video shared Sept. 10 on Facebook. The video post has since been removed from Facebook. 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 Facebook.) We found no proof that Trump’s legal team has abandoned him or that they are avoiding contact with him. The attorneys submitted a legal filing on Trump’s behalf Sept. 12, two days after the video was posted. The video — and its caption about the attorneys quitting — originated on YouTube from political commentator Christo Aivalis, who claimed Sept. 9 that a recent series of developments involving Trump’s defense have been "devastating" for Trump, one of which was his lawyers abandoning him. "Trump’s entire legal team has suddenly quit on him when he needs them most," Aivalis said. He said the former president’s lawyers had "gone radio silent," refusing contact with Trump and not corroborating his claim that the Federal Bureau of Investigation planted evidence when it searched his Mar-a-Lago home. "They've disappeared and they won't talk about the lies that he's making," Aivalis claimed. Aivalis' claim appears to rely on a summary of political analyst Steve Benen’s take on Trumps' defense strategy. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 27, 2022 in a post Video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene planted pipe bombs at Republican and Democratic party headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021. By Gabrielle Settles • October 31, 2022 Benen, a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," wrote about the Justice Department’s investigation and social media posts Trump made on Truth Social. In them, Trump accused the FBI of spying on his campaign, breaking into his home, losing documents and planting fake evidence. Benen said there was a gap between what Trump said on social media and what his lawyers have said in court. Outside of Aivalis’ video, there have been no media reports of Trump’s legal team dropping him as a client or avoiding contact with him. Trump does have a history of combative relationships with his lawyers. Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, turned against Trump after being sentenced to three years in prisons for crimes he said were committed on the former president's behalf. And Trump’s entire defense team for his impeachment related to the U.S. Capitol attack quit days before the trial was supposed to begin in late January 2021. Trump also had trouble recruiting lawyers for his current defense team. The Washington Post reported that multiple attorneys declined to help represent him against the U.S. government. Our ruling A video shared on Facebook says, "Trսmp Lawyers ALL QUIT on Him at the SAME TIME." The headline is misleading. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump’s lawyers have abandoned him as a client. His legal team submitted a filing to the court days after the video claimed they had quit. We rate this claim Fals

“Obama & Clinton are being arrested by the military. Former President Barack Obama returned to the White House on Sept. 7 for the unveiling of his and former first lady Michelle Obama’s official portraits. Is he now in custody, alongside former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in 2004, similarly unveiled her White House portrait with former President Bill Clinton? A recent Facebook post makes just such a claim. "Obama & Clinton are being arrested by the military," reads the description of a video posted Sept. 14 on the social media platform. 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.) 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 claim is bogus. The 15-minute video makes no mention of Obama or Clinton getting arrested. We also found no media reports to corroborate the claim. And given that there was widespread reporting of the unveiling of the White House portraits of both Obama and Clinton, there would certainly have been wall-to-wall news coverage if they’d been arrested. Both Obama and Clinton have remained active on social media since Obama’s portrait unveiling and the inaccurate Facebook post. And on Sept. 15, Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton appeared on "The Drew Barrymore Show." We rate this post Pants on Fire!

To qualify for Ohio SNAP benefits, “now a family of 3 can make up to $3,660 a month and it used to be $2,700, so it’s gone up almost $1,000 a month. Following a modest annual cost-of-living adjustment, previously ineligible Ohio residents might qualify for benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But the eligibility expansion is not as sweeping as some social media users claimed. "Ohio department of job and family has upped the threshold for snap (food stamp benefits)," read one Sept. 6 Facebook post. "Beginning now these are the new cut offs! Now, a family of three can make up to $3,660 a month and it used to be $2,700 so it’s gone up almost $1,000 a month. If you didn’t qualify before you may qualify now, check the chart below." An image featuring household size and corresponding income thresholds was attached to the post. 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 Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook.) The chart shared in the Facebook post appears to have originated on Snapscreener.com, a website that says it helps people determine whether they’re eligible for SNAP benefits. The site said it takes its information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state SNAP resources, but cautioned it is an unofficial resource "not affiliated with any government organization." Snapscreener.com claimed its Ohio information covers eligibility requirements from Oct. 1, 2021, to Sept. 30, 2022. That’s fiscal year 2022. But the Facebook user’s screenshot of the chart left out necessary context that Snapscreener.com had included. The site’s chart said it showed eligibility requirements in situations where "any household members are elderly or disabled." Those limits are higher than limits for households where that is not the situation. The general eligibility requirements the Facebook post purported to share do not match the requirements on the USDA website for households without elderly or disabled members. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website provides income eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on its website. (Screenshot from the U.S. Department of Agriculture) Dasia Clemente, an Ohio Department of Job and Family Services spokesperson, confirmed that for fiscal year 2022, the gross income limit for a household of three to qualify for SNAP benefits was $2,379. Beginning Oct. 1 — which marks the start of fiscal year 2023 — the gross income limit for a family of three will increase to $2,495. That’s an increase of $116, far below what the Facebook post claimed. The increase is uniform across nearly all U.S. states. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 24, 2022 in a video McDonald's uses potatoes sprayed with a highly toxic pesticide called Monitor. By Andy Nguyen • October 28, 2022 In most cases, a household must meet gross and net income limits to qualify for SNAP benefits, according to the USDA. Gross income refers to a household’s total income before allowable deductions, while net income refers to the remaining monthly income after allowable deductions have been made. Clemente said that every year, the USDA increases the gross income limits for SNAP benefits, and all states must implement the change. The increase is an annual cost-of-living adjustment, according to a memo from Matt Damschroder, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Damschroder’s memo said that for the 2023 fiscal year, gross income limits to qualify for SNAP benefits in Ohio and most other states will be as follows: An individual: $1,473 A group of two: $1,984 A group of three: $2,495 A group of four: $3,007 A group of five: $3,518 A group of six: $4,029 A group of seven: $4,541 A group of eight: $5,052 For each additional person, the gross income limit will increase by $512. Our ruling A Facebook post said that to qualify for Ohio SNAP benefits, "now a family of 3 can make up to $3,660 a month and it used to be $2,700, so it’s gone up almost $1,000 a month." For fiscal year 2022, the gross income limit for a household of three to qualify for SNAP benefits in Ohio and most other states was $2,379. For fiscal year 2023, the limit will be $2,495. That’s an increase of $116, not nearly $1,000. We rate this claim False. Update, Oct. 6, 2022: This fact-check has been updated to better reflect that a Facebook user shared a screenshot of a chart on Snapscreener.com and cut out necessary context from that website. The rating is unchange

A CNN report on 9/11 proved that a plane never hit the Pentagon As a CNN reporter stood in front of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, to give his live report, smoke billowed from the building behind him and grim images showed the aftermath of the attack that killed more than 180 people. Now, 21 years later, social media users are sharing a misleadingly edited version of that news report to bolster the conspiracy theory that a plane never struck the building. A Sept. 12 Instagram post that shared the CNN video shows Jamie McIntyre, who was then the network's military affairs correspondent, saying he had walked up to the Pentagon building to get a closer look at the "huge, gaping hole." In the Instagram clip, McIntyre then says, "From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." He also says there are no large sections of the airplane body anywhere nearby. The Instagram post’s caption says, "Watch the fact checkers say this is false and misleading when in fact every article or photo will show you ZERO debris at the alleged crash site at the Pentagon." Another Instagram user also shared the same clip. The 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.) But the clip shared on Instagram was edited to truncate McIntyre’s remarks. In the original broadcast, just before the 5:41 mark, the anchor says eyewitnesses said it appeared that Boeing 757 might have landed short of the Pentagon, and she asked McIntyre how much of the plane struck the building. McIntyre answered, "It might have appeared that way. But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in." 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 He had also noted earlier in the broadcast that he saw a piece of 3-foot-long metal, painted green and red, and a large piece of shattered glass that appeared to be the cockpit windshield. We also fact-checked a claim that there was no debris at the Pentagon crash site and rated it Pants on Fire! FBI releases new batch of 9/11 Pentagon photos showing scorched interior, plane debris, building's gaping hole https://t.co/E7AqxM5GDi pic.twitter.com/TsY6NsM0rg— ABC News (@ABC) March 31, 2017 McIntyre addressed the conspiracy himself in a 2015 video report for Al Jazeera. "Little did I know as I was doing this live report … that I would fuel the doubts of so-called 9/11 truthers, who believe the attack was an inside job," he said. Our ruling An Instagram post says a CNN report on 9/11 proved that a plane never hit the Pentagon. The clip was misleadingly edited and the reporter’s words were taken out of context. The original broadcast makes it clear that the reporter said a plane had crashed into the building and that he saw parts of the airplane wreckage on-site. We rate this claim False

“The FBI confirmed” that Ashley Biden said her father molested her The FBI in late August announced a plea deal in a case involving the theft and sale of a handwritten journal belonging to an immediate family member of a politician. Though the FBI did not name the politician or the property-owner, it’s been widely reported for months that the case involved Ashley Biden, daughter of President Joe Biden. Some social media users took the FBI’s announcement as confirmation of salacious details allegedly contained in the diary. "Joe Biden's daughter said that her dad showered with her inappropriately. The FBI confirmed it today," read a Sept. 9 Facebook post. "This is the sitting President of the United States. How is this not a huge story? My father molested me in the shower many times. Ashley Biden." 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 Facebook.) We found more examples of this claim elsewhere. It’s wrong. The FBI did not confirm that any alleged contents of the diary are true. It announced that two Florida residents had pleaded guilty to "​​conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property involving the theft of personal belongings of an immediate family member of a then-former government official who was a candidate for national political office." Neither the announcement of the plea deal nor the charging documents name anyone other than defendants Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander. Nor did either document make any mention about the diary’s contents. 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 FBI also did not name Project Veritas, either, writing that Harris and Kurlander had sold the diary and other belongings to "to an organization in New York for $40,000." Both the FBI and Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe confirmed in November 2021 that the FBI seached the homes of O’Keefe and two others in connection with the case. According to charging documents, the victim’s property, including a personal journal, was "stored" in a room at a residence in Delray Beach, Florida, when she moved out. Harris later moved into that residence in 2020. She discovered to whom the items belonged, then conspired with Kurlander to sell them to a group in New York, the court documents said. O’Keefe has said the diary was provided to his group by tipsters, and that he chose not to publish its contents because he could not authenticate that the diary belonged to Ashley Biden. O’Keefe said the items were handed over to a law enforcement agency. No charges have been filed against O’Keefe or anyone else in the case. A digital copy of the diary was eventually published by another conservative outlet, the National File, which said it obtained it from a "Project Veritas whistleblower." Unfounded claims that Joe Biden is a pedophile ran rampant during the 2020 presidential campaign. PolitiFact could not find any credible accusations involving children against Biden in his more than 40 years of public life. Our ruling A Facebook post claims the FBI confirmed that Ashley Biden wrote in her diary that her father molested her as a child. The FBI said no such thing. The announcement of a plea deal involving two people who sold the diary does not mention either Biden’s name, much less the content of the diary. We rate this claim Fals

Video shows Hillary Clinton popping a brown paper bag during a press conference In a low-quality Facebook video of what appears to be a White House press conference, a woman standing by the lectern in a red suit blows up a brown paper bag and pops it, creating a loud bang. She cackles as men rush to protect a person we can only assume is the president of the United States. Though the man standing behind the lectern in the Aug. 5 video doesn’t sound like former President Bill Clinton, he resembles him. And the red-suited woman resembles his wife, former Secretary of State and former first lady Hillary Clinton. The Facebook post sharing this 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.) 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 name of a website appears on the Facebook video — culturepub.fr. Searching for the words "culturepub," "clinton" and "bag," we found another version of the video on the French site. There, the clip is much lighter and clearer, making it obvious these people aren’t the Clintons. And in French, the video is clearly labeled as a parody. We rate claims that this video shows the real Clintons Pants on Fire!

“The pope, Xi and Putin all meet to plan world events! Did Pope Francis, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin all recently meet with each other to plan geopolitical moves? That’s what a recent social media post claims, but it conflates news reports and reaches an erroneous conclusion. "Breaking!!!!," reads the description of a Sept. 13 video posted on Facebook. "The pope, Xi and Putin all meet to plan world events!!!" 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.) In the video, a man says that the pope "is now meeting in Kazakhstan, and guess who’s also in Kazakhstan? Well, the premier, Mr. Xi of China, and Vladimir Putin, all meeting at the same time at this crux of the war in Ukraine. So isn’t that interesting? It’s not just the pope in Kazakhstan today, as we speak, it’s also Xi and Putin." Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 22, 2022 in an Instagram post A CNN headline shows Uganda’s president saying he doesn’t support Ukraine because it would be “disgusting.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 24, 2022 It’s true that the pope and Xi were both in Kazakhstan on Sept. 14 — their separate state visits to the country overlapped — but the Associated Press reported there was no indication they would meet. The Vatican also said there are no plans for them to come face to face. During his flight to Kazakhstan, the pope said about a possible meeting with Xi, "I don’t have any news about this. But I am always ready to go to China." The pope was also in Kazakhstan to attend an interfaith congress of world leaders that aimed to spur interreligious dialogue. The pope had hoped to meet Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church during his Kazakhstan trip to secure an invitation through him to visit Russia, the French news outlet Le Monde reported. But Kirill didn’t attend the religious congress. Xi’s trip to Kazakhstan was his first outside of China since the coronavirus pandemic began in 2020, and he said through a translator that he chose Kazakhstan to demonstrate the "deep friendship" between the two countries. Putin is not in Kazakhstan, though he and Xi met in Uzbekistan on Thursday. We rate claims that the pope, Putin and Xi are meeting to "plan world events" False.

Under new Illinois law, these crimes are “nondetainable": “Burglary, robbery, arson, kidnapping, DUI offenses, even DUI involving a fatality, most drug offenses, and even 2nd degree murder. Social media posts are sounding the alarm about a change in Illinois law that they suggest will radically undermine public safety. "Things are gonna get crazy on January, 1, 2023," read a Facebook post on Sept. 9. "The state of Illinois passed a bill that will go into effect on January 1, 2023, these following crimes would be considered nondetainable. Burglary, robbery, arson, kidnapping, DUI offenses, even DUI involving a fatality, most drug offenses, and even 2nd degree murder." But before Illinoisans start packing their bags, we advise taking a closer look at the law these posts are talking about. In February 2021, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law a sweeping 764-page criminal justice bill called the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity Act, or Safe-T Act. The law makes changes to police and court practices and detainee rights, among other things. Part of that law, known as the Pretrial Fairness Act, will change bond court practices across the state. It would eliminate cash bail, or money paid by a defendant to get out of jail while awaiting trial. That change goes into effect Jan. 1 and will make Illinois the first state to completely do away with cash bail. But these posts mislead by suggesting that people charged with the crimes listed cannot be detained under any circumstance. The 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 Facebook.) We saw similar claims here, here, here and here. The new law’s proponents say that eliminating cash bail will make the criminal justice system fairer. Defendants often remain incarcerated before trial because they just can’t afford their bail, which is 10 percent of the total amount in Illinois. "There are too many people that have been held not because they’re a risk, but simply because they could not afford monetary bail, and not only does that affect that person in custody but also their family," said Jordan Abudayyeh, press secretary for Pritzker. "At the same time, victim’s rights groups have long been concerned that dangerous individuals have been released simply because they could afford to pay bail. Public safety is best addressed by focusing on risk rather than money." Pritzker tweeted on Sept. 13, seeking to dispel what he said were myths about the law, including whether it prohibits pretrial detention for certain crimes. Others, including some elected officials and prosecutors, say they worry that the change will threaten public safety, keeping dangerous criminals on the streets and law enforcement and prosecutors from doing their jobs effectively. A 34-person commission — including prosecutors, sheriffs and judges — advised legislators on the law before it passed, Sharlyn Grace, a senior policy advisor with the Cook County Public Defender Office, told Block Club Chicago. What does the law say? The law says that "all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before conviction." But "eligible" doesn’t mean every person will be granted pretrial release. Prosecutors can petition the court if they wish to keep a suspect detained, and a judge will approve or deny the continued detention at a hearing, typically held within 48 hours of the suspect’s first court appearance. Those who are released still can be subject to supervision, such as electronic monitoring. 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 "There is no such thing as a ‘nondetainable’ offense," Abudayyeh said. "Any alleged offender could be detained because of a risk of flight or because they are a repeat offender, and those charged with the most serious crimes — which are nonprobationable — can also be detained for risk to public safety." The law lists two scenarios in which a prosecutor could seek pretrial detention of a suspect: when a person is a risk to public safety or a willful flight risk. It goes into greater detail about the offenses detainable under the law, including the charge of a forcible felony, in which someone convicted cannot be sentenced to probation or conditional release. It also states that the defendant must pose "a specific, real and present threat to any person or the community." David Olson, a criminal justice and criminology professor at Loyola University Chicago, said under the law’s public safety provision, there are three broad categories: forcible felonies not eligible for probation, such as first-degree murder, home invasion and armed robbery firearm possession offenses domestic battery, including violating an order of protection "Then there are a broader group of offenses that can be detained under the willful flight consideration," said Olson. Sonja Starr, a law and criminology professor at the University of Chicago, said that "in general, Illinois courts will be able to detain defendants who pose a real, identifiable risk to the safety of any person, or have a ‘high likelihood of willful flight,’ if other security conditions won't suffice to protect against those dangers.’ What the post gets wrong The Facebook post is misleading, Olson said. There are different classes of felonies for many crimes, so people who commit several of the crimes listed in the post could be detained for public safety considerations, depending on the charge. Olson cited robbery, burglary and battery as examples. The post says people who commit robbery can’t be detained. But armed robbery is a forcible felony, not eligible for probation, "and therefore is detention-eligible," Olson said. Simple robbery is a Class 2 felony that is not detainable under the public safety consideration, but someone could be detained under the willful flight provision. Likewise, Olson said, residential burglary — a Class 1 felony that is not eligible for probation — is eligible for detention under the public safety consideration, but nonresidential burglary, a Class 3 felony, would be eligible for detention only under the flight-risk provision. Olson also said aggravated battery with a firearm is a Class X felony, the most serious category of crimes other than first-degree murder, and not eligible for probation. Domestic battery suspects could also be held under the law’s public safety consideration. Other battery cases would be eligible only under the willful flight provision, Olson said. Any crime categorized as Class 3 or higher could be considered for detention if the suspect is a flight risk. All the crimes listed in the Facebook post could meet that criteria, depending on the details. Starr said the risk assessment will depend on what offense is charged, but added that for the most serious offenses, "detention appears to be presumptive, unless the defendant can show that evidence against them is weak." Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that "burglary, robbery, arson, kidnapping, DUI offenses, DUI involving a fatality, most drug offenses, and even 2nd degree murder" will be nondetainable crimes in Illinois starting in January, when a new law goes into effect, eliminating cash bail. The law going into effect Jan. 1 does not list specific crimes that are "nondetainable." It eliminates cash bail and says that prosecutors must petition a judge and make their case to hold a defendant in jail pretrial, either because of public safety or flight risk. All of the crimes listed in the Facebook post could be considered for detention. We rate this claim Fals

"Russia is becoming the first country to break ties with the Antarctic Treaty. Did Russia quietly exit the decades-old Antarctic Treaty after blowing the whistle on a multinational cover-up of a secret civilization beneath the ice of the world’s southernmost continent? That’s what a TikTok video shared in a Sept. 12 Instagram post claimed. A man in the video claimed that "Russia is now becoming the first country to break ties with the Antarctic Treaty." "Russia is now stating there is an entire continent" beneath Antarctica that includes "fresh water, lakes, rivers and civilization," he continued. The post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook, which owns Instagram, to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, what is the Antarctic Treaty, and what is its significance? The Antarctic Treaty was originally signed by 12 nations (including the United States and Russia) in 1959 and enacted in 1961. It is a 14-article agreement intended to cooperatively regulate any official activity by governments in and around Antarctica. It also stipulates that the continent is to remain a demilitarized zone. Its intent was to foster cooperation and transparency among nations engaged in scientific research there. Representatives from member countries convene annually, most recently in Berlin from May 22 to June 3. Any sovereign country with membership in the United Nations may join. Fifty-four countries are members today. While news reports described Russia getting a cold reception at the meeting, there’s no indication Russia withdrew from the agreement. 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 conference was held about three months after Russia invaded Ukraine. One senior German official was quoted by the AP saying, it was "not an easy decision to come together here in Berlin at the negotiation table while one consultative party is waging war on another consultative party." We reviewed news articles and official materials from the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty and found no mention or reference to Russia removing itself from the agreement. On the website maintained by the secretariat, Russia remains listed as an official party to the treaty. It links to an official web page that appears to be maintained by the Russian government, summarizing ongoing projects and expeditions. We also reached out to the office of the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty to ask about the claim, but didn’t hear back. Claims that there are civilizations beneath Antarctica are baseless, as we’ve previously reported. If Earth were hollow, which claims of civilization beneath Antarctica would imply, that would require the entirety of the planet’s mass to be less dense than the rocks that help make up its crust, a University of Chicago-based geophysics expert explained in a previous interview with PolitiFact. Beyond that, scientists have collected irrefutable evidence that proves the Earth isn’t hollow. Even though scientists cannot visit the Earth’s interior, they have learned about its composition by analyzing, among other things, the waves produced by earthquakes that run through the Earth’s interior. Those waves slow and change paths as they encounter the boundaries of the internal layers. Our ruling A TikTok video shared to Instagram claims that Russia opted out of the six-decade-old Antarctic Treaty and confirmed that there is another civilization beneath the frozen continent. There is zero evidence corroborating either claim. We rate this video Pants on Fir

“The sun is not 93 million miles away … it is local and under a firmament dome. The sun is so far away from Earth that it would take eight minutes for that huge ball of gas to reach us traveling at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. It would take an airliner more than 20 years to fly there. But a recent Instagram post suggests it’s actually much, much closer. "The sun is not 93 million miles away as false science tells us," the Sept. 13 post says. "It is local and under a firmament dome, as the bible declares." 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.) Some people who believe Earth is flat point to the Bible and argue that it’s covered in a dome called the firmament. It’s well established that the Earth is a sphere — technically an irregularly shaped ellipsoid, according to the National Ocean Service — and it is 93 million miles away from the sun, according to NASA. 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 2016, astronomer Jagadheep Pandian broke down how we know the distance between the sun and Earth for Cornell University. Humans have been able to use radar to measure interplanetary distances since 1961, transmitting a radar signal at a planet, or the moon, and measuring how long it takes for that radar echo to return. To measure how far we are from the sun, it’s necessary to first find the relative distances between Earth and other planets, Pandian wrote. Scientists then use what they know about interplanetary distances to scale the distance between the Earth and the sun. Because Earth doesn’t orbit the sun in a perfect circle, its distance from the sun changes during the year. At their closest, Earth and the sun are 91.4 million miles apart, according to the California Institute of Technology. At their farthest, they’re 94.5 million miles away from each other. The average distance is about 93 million miles. We rate claims that the sun isn’t that far away, and rather under a dome, Pants on Fire! Correction Sept. 15, 2022: It would take the sun eight minutes to reach Earth traveling at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. A previous version of this story cited an incorrect amount of time. Clarification, Sept. 16, 2022: The Earth is a sphere that is 93 million miles away from the sun. A previous version of this story included an incorrect planetary reference.

“Everyone but Trump invited to royal funeral. "Everyone but Trump invited to royal funeral," reads what looks like a headline to a story. The supposed article featured in a Sept. 13 Instagram post goes on to include the subheadline "Queen left explicit instructions excluding "that f------- moron." Were it true, it would be a rather shocking revelation about a queen who kept mum about her personal opinions of her high-profile counterparts. But it’s not true. 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.) Searching for the headline, we found no credible news sources but discovered on a meme site a version of the image of the story that included People magazine’s logo. There’s no such story on the magazine’s website. 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 President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden received an invitation to the funeral, and in the past, presidents have invited their predecessors to join them for high-profile funerals, USA Today reported. But the invitation was for only the Bidens, and Buckingham Palace didn’t give the president permission to bring a delegation with him. Jimmy Carter told the newspaper he didn’t get an invitation. Spokespeople for Trump and former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton didn’t comment. Politico reported that it had obtained official documents from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in the United Kingdom that said only heads of state and their spouses or partners from each country have been invited to the funeral. At a press conference Sept. 12, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre whether Biden "would bring any former presidents with him" if he’s allowed. Jean-Pierre said the decision lay with the United Kingdom’s government. "The invite was for the president and the first lady only," she said. We rate claims that everyone but Trump was invited to the queen’s funeral False.

“No plane debris was found at the Pentagon. A 9/11 conspiracy theory says evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon just doesn’t exist. A Sept. 12 Instagram post shared a photo of the Pentagon after it had been struck in 2001, along with the words: "Never forget no plane debris was found at the Pentagon." The post also said, "There is no CCTV footage & trillions went missing from the budget." 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 Facebook.) The post was later removed from Instagram. The claim is unfounded. FBI photographs of the Pentagon from that day show the remnants of the American Airlines plane that flew into the building. It is among numerous conspiracy theories and false claims that have proliferated in the 21 years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This file photo taken on 9/11 shows impact on the Pentagon after a plane crashed into the building. Sept. 11, 2001 (AP) 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 Pentagon was the third building hit during the attacks. The twin towers of the previous World Trade Center in New York City were hit just hours before. And a fourth plane that was en route to another target in Washington, D.C., crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers overtook the hijackers. Deaths at the Pentagon that day numbered 184; nearly 3,000 died in total during the entire attack. The second part of the claim — that there is no closed-caption TV footage and trillions went missing from the budget — also has been debunked by The Associated Press. There are photos of plane debris from the Pentagon on 9/11; we rate the claim that there was no plane debris Pants on Fire! RELATED: Yes, a plane crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 20

Video shows a statement from Donald Trump on Sept. 8, 2022 Former President Donald Trump’s voice is distorted in a widely viewed video published Sept. 8 on Facebook. He appears standing behind a lectern bearing the presidential seal, and he’s flanked by a flag with the seal and an American flag. A description of the video in the post says it shows a "statement by Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States - Sept. 8, 2022." But that’s wrong. 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 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 Facebook.) RELATED VIDEO Trump is no longer president, but he was when he delivered the speech in the video on Dec. 2, 2020. The remarks came after his failed re-election bid and included unfounded and false allegations of widespread voter fraud in the presidential election that year. We rate claims that this speech was delivered in 2022 Pants on Fire!

A Boeing 757 didn’t fly into the Pentagon on 9/11 The 21st anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks inspired remembrances of the people who died that day and a resurgence of unfounded claims about what happened. Several recent social media posts suggested that a Boeing 757 didn’t crash into the Pentagon more than two decades ago. "For that Boeing 757 to hit the Pentagon, this is how low it would have had to approach the building," read one Sept. 11 post on Facebook that featured an image of a plane positioned on the ground outside the Defense Department headquarters. "A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon," another Facebook post read. And a third post, on Instagram, said, ""Seriously doesn't make sense ... it looks like a missile." 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.) Plenty of evidence undercuts the claims. The 9/11 Commission Report explains in detail what happened before and after American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that morning, killing all 64 people onboard and 125 people in the Pentagon. Passengers on the flight called family members and reported that the plane had been hijacked at 8:54 a.m., the report said. Air traffic controllers repeatedly tried and failed to contact the plane, which had deviated from its course. At 9:29 a.m., when the plane was at 7,000 feet and about 38 miles west of the Pentagon, its autopilot was disengaged, the report said. 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 A few minutes later, according to the report, air traffic controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control in Washington "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77. When the flight was 5 miles southwest of the Pentagon, it executed a 330-degree turn and started descending through 2,200 feet toward the building. "The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon," the report said. Around 9:38 a.m., the plane, then moving at about 530 miles per hour, crashed into the Pentagon. Corroborating the report from the 9/11 Commission and the Defense Department’s account of what happened that day, survivors have described what they witnessed that day. Sean Boger recalled being in a control tower for the Pentagon’s helipad when he saw the plane flying low, clipping a streetlamp and hitting the building about 10 seconds later. Sheila Moody, who was working her first day at the Pentagon, said the plane hitting the building ounded like "an explosion, like a bomb." We rate claims that a plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 Pants on Fire! RELATED: 9/11 conspiracy theories misconstrue how World Trade Center buildings collapsed RELATED: Plane debris was found at Pentagon after 9/

Photos show Queen Elizabeth II was a “Luciferian. Queen Elizabeth II, who died Sept. 8, was a Christian — supreme governor of the Church of England — but a recent social media post declared her a Luciferian and purported to have photo evidence to prove it. "She was a luciferian since day one," the Instagram post says. "They just called it druids at that time. Lol. Now she home with her master." A Luciferian, according to the National Catholic Register, worships the character of Lucifer as a liberator or "bringer of light." The post cycles through several photos of the queen wearing robes and a hood. Text appearing over the photos says "Queen Elizabeth II druidic initiation." 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.) In August 1946, then-Princess Elizabeth was "initiated into the mystic circle of Welsh bards during the annual Eisteddfod at Mountain Ash, Glamorgan," reads the caption of a Getty Images photo of Elizabeth at the event. "The bards meet each year at the meeting, in order to compete for the highest artistic achievement of that year." 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 Elizabeth was dressed as a druid for the ceremony, which initiated her as an honorary bard of "the Gorsedd of the Bards of Wales," according to news reports and the Royal Collection Trust, a department within the royal household that maintains royal art collections and manages public openings of official royal residences. (She lost the title in 2006 when the rules changed and members of the Gorsedd of the Bards were required to speak Welsh, which Elizabeth did not.) The Gorsedd of the Bards, a group dating back to the late 1700s, creates pageantry at the National Eisteddfod, an annual festival in Wales, the BBC said. "Gorsedd members, known as druids, include poets, writers, musicians, artists and others who have made a distinguished contribution to the Welsh nation, the language and its culture," according to the BBC. The Gorsedd of the Bards was inspired by druids, or ancient Celtic priests, but aimed to protect the language and culture of Wales. Gorsedd's creator "put his own spin on druid influences but remained firm in his Christian beliefs," the BBC said, and the group’s primary mission was "to honor the literary achievements of Welsh poets and prose writers — and not pagan gods." Dr. Cathryn Charnell-White, an expert on the group’s founding, told the BBC, "There’s no pagan link there at all." Sky History reports that Luciferians, meanwhile, date back to the 13th and 14th centuries in Europe and "wanted to restore Lucifer to his righteous place in heaven." Photos of a young Elizabeth participating in a cultural festival in Wales does not mean that she is a Luciferian. We rate this post False.

“Nancy Pelosi set to resign from Congress as Trump files impeachment lawsuits against her. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached former President Donald Trump twice. Has he initiated a process to impeach her right back? That’s what a recent Facebook post claims. "Nancy Pelosi set to RESIGN from Congress as Trump files IMPEACHMENT lawsuits against her," the Sept. 12 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 Facebook.) We searched federal court records in Pacer, a case locator tool, for evidence that Trump filed a lawsuit against Pelosi, D-Calif., and found none. Although Pelosi has indicated she’ll be stepping down from the House’s helm at the end of this Congress on Jan. 3, 2023, we couldn’t corroborate the claim that she’s resigning over impeachment fears, as the Facebook post suggests. There are no statements indicating that from her, her office or in news reports. 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 RELATED VIDEO Plus, Trump — or anyone filing a lawsuit — can’t initiate impeachment proceedings against Pelosi. Article II of the Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official. So far, no House majority has ever impeached a president of the same party. It’s not clear a member of Congress can even be impeached, but for what it’s worth, no House majority has ever impeached a speaker of the same party, either. Pelosi was named in a lawsuit the Republican National Committee filed involving the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. But a federal judge rejected that case. We rate this post False.

“I don’t accept a dime of corporate money. When corporations offer campaign contributions, Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., says she turns away. "I don’t accept a dime of corporate money," she tweeted Sept. 2. Spanberger, who is seeking a third term in Congress this fall, is running against Republican Yesli Vega, a Prince William County supervisor. They’re competing in the newly redrawn 7th Congressional District that has 72% of its population in Prince William, Stafford and Spotsylvania counties. Since her first campaign in 2018, Spanberger has pledged to reject corporate money, and Republicans have accused her of accepting backdoor contributions from big businesses. According to her latest filings with the Federal Election Commission, Spanberger raised $5.6 million in contributions from Jan. 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. None of that money came directly from corporations. But here’s an asterisk: Although Spanberger refuses direct donations from corporate PACs, she accepts contributions from other PACs that contain corporate-directed money. Spanberger has accepted money from both leadership PACs, which are set up by most members of Congress to help candidates from their party, and ideological PACs, which focus on special causes, such as regulation, defense or health care. Some of the political action committees that have donated to Spanberger receive money from corporate PACs. One example: Spanberger has received a maximum of $10,000 from the Forward Together PAC, associated with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Forward Together has accepted contributions from a list of corporate PACs, including Amazon, Microsoft Corp., Pfizer, Lockheed Martin Corp., General Motors Co. and Dominion Energy. We counted 57 leadership PACs that contributed to Spanberger’s campaign between the start of 2021 and June 30, 2022. Forty-eight of the PACs accepted corporate-tied donations. We don’t know the exact amount of corporate money that has seeped into Spanberger’s campaign coffer through leadership PACs, but it’s relatively small. Spanberger collected $187,500 in leadership PAC donations from the start of 2021 through June 30, 2022, which was 3.4% of all the money she raised. And much of the money raised by the leadership PACs did not come from corporate sources. Featured Fact-check Levar Stoney stated on October 26, 2022 in a news conference. “I don’t get involved in the hiring and firing of police chiefs.” By Warren Fiske • November 2, 2022 Perspective Sixty-one members of Congress — including one Republican, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida — have current promises not to accept corporate money, according to End Citizens United, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit seeking to tighten campaign finance laws. Spanberger is the only Virginia congress member to make the pledge. Campaign finance advocates told us they’re unaware of any incumbent who is declining both corporate and leadership PAC money. End Citizens United endorsed Spanberger because of her no-corporate-money pledge and her support of campaign finance reforms. A spokesperson for the organization said her acceptance of leadership PAC money is unimportant. "She has absolutely kept her pledge not to take corporate PAC money," said Adam Bozzi, the group’s vice president for communications. End Citizens United has given Spanberger an A+ rating. "There’s dark money and corporate money all through politics," Bozzi said. "Abigail Spanberger is actually one of the people who’s fighting it." Spanberger campaign manager Sam Signori said, "Rep. Spanberger does not accept corporate PAC money, period. We welcome you to review our FEC filings to confirm that Rep. Spanberger does not accept corporate PAC contributions." Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, told PolitiFact in 2020 that it’s all but impossible for candidates to fully wall out corporate money. "If you need money to run a political campaign, unless you’re independently wealthy, you’re getting money from people," she said. "And most people work for corporations." The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization, tracks money in American politics through its website OpenSecrets.org. Our ruling Spanberger said, "I don’t accept a dime of corporate money." She’s raised $5.5 million for this fall’s campaign — none directly from corporate political action committees. A 3.4% portion of that money is from leadership PACs that do accept money from corporate PACs among other sources. In other words, Spanberger receives a small amount of corporate PAC money indirectly. Realizing that it may be impossible to block all traces of corporate money from a successful congressional campaign, we rate Spanberger’s statement Mostly True.

Donald Trump said, “I never told anybody but she knighted me in private. Former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to express his condolences about the death of Queen Elizabeth II, but he didn’t claim that the queen had secretly knighted him, as an image circulating online suggests. "I never told anybody but she knighted me in private," reads the text in what appears to be a screenshot of a Truth Social post from @realDonaldTrump. Instagram posts sharing the image 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 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 We found no evidence Trump posted this. It’s not in his Truth Social feed, and although we found a post from another user claiming that Trump shared that message, there’s nothing to corroborate that. RELATED VIDEO A Trump spokesperson told The Associated Press that the image isn’t an authentic screenshot of a Trump post. Trump did once claim that a 2019 visit he took to the United Kingdom was the most fun the queen had had in 25 years, but he didn’t say what the post claims. We rate claims that this screenshot is authentic False.

Following protests in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 2020, Democratic U.S. House candidate Hillary Scholten "dismissed the destruction and praised the rioters. Last week, a political action committee that works to elect Republicans to Congress claimed that a west Michigan Democrat running for a U.S. House seat "dismissed" the damage that took place in Grand Rapids in May 2020 following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and "praised" the rioters. The candidate, Hillary Scholten, did neither. The Congressional Leadership Fund last week began airing a TV ad targeting Scholten. In that ad, the fund referred to unrest and damage that occurred in Grand Rapids in late May 2020, more than two years before, in protests against police brutality. The protest in Grand Rapids began peacefully then became violent. On May 30, 2020, demonstrators broke windows, damaged businesses and set fire to seven police cars and some government buildings. Some reports estimated the costs from damage and police overtime at more than $2.4 million. In the ad, the fund shows footage of fires and destruction and claims that on the day after the protest, May 31, 2020, Scholten "dismissed the destruction and praised the rioters" in a post on her Facebook page, a claim Scholten’s campaign disputes. CLF bases claim on Scholten’s support for another Facebook post Shortly after the ad aired, Scholten’s campaign issued a statement noting that, on the day in question, she posted on Facebook that Floyd’s death was a "grave injustice" and supported efforts to "elevate the cause of racial justice." But she also said "that work cannot be accomplished by harming even more innocent people." 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 "Our community will struggle to rebuild from the ongoing crisis brought on by the coronavirus, and last night’s destruction will make that even more difficult," that post continued. "People can and should continue to speak out for George and all victims of violence. I'm pleading with those who take to the streets to make that effort peaceful and to not resort to violence and destruction." In defending its ad, however, the Congressional Leadership Fund pointed to another Scholten post, from that same day. In that one, she referenced a Facebook post by state Sen. Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, in which Brinks began, "Broken glass will be swept up today. Broken windows will be replaced in a matter of days." Brinks went on to say that fixing "broken systems" and achieving racial justice would be a far more difficult task. The post did not directly address the demonstrators’ culpability or denounce the violence. In her post, referring to Brinks’ post, Scholten thanked Brinks for her "wise words" and added that she, Scholten, was "praying for peace and working for justice." Our ruling Scholten voiced her support for Brinks’ statement, which some people could read as downplaying the violence in Grand Rapids. But to use that solely as the basis for a claim that Scholten "dismissed the destruction and praised the rioters" is incorrect. At no point in any of these posts did Scholten directly do either. And the Congressional Leadership Fund has offered no additional proof of the claim. It cherry-picks her words of support for one statement that does not denounce the violence while her own statement, posted the same day, does, specifically urging protesters "to not resort to violence and destruction." To cite one and not the other leaves out context that was clearly available to the fund more than two years after the posts were made. We rate this claim Fal

“I had zero emails that were classified. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against comparisons between her email probe and the search on former President Donald Trump’s Florida home. In a Sept. 6 Twitter thread, Clinton said "the right is trying to make this about me again. "The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified," Clinton claimed. "I’m more tired of talking about this than anyone, but here we are." I can’t believe we’re still talking about this, but my emails…As Trump’s problems continue to mount, the right is trying to make this about me again. There’s even a “Clinton Standard."The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified.— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 6, 2022 We have previously compared Clinton’s emails with the FBI’s search on Mar-a-Lago and have fact-checked other claims she has made about her emails. Over the years, the facts about the emails have become clearer. In 2016, Clinton said she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state. We rated that False. Since then, the State Department and Justice Department have published new information from their own investigations of the emails. Some of Clinton’s emails contained classified information, but none were found to be marked as such. What we know about the markings in Clinton’s emails Clinton’s email troubles started in 2014, when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked the State Department for all of her emails. The department didn’t have them all because, instead of using only the State Department email system (with an email address ending in @state.gov), Clinton used a personal email address (ending in @clintonemail.com) housed on private servers in her Chappaqua, New York, home. In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans. On July 5, 2016, the FBI released its findings on an investigation into Clinton’s emails. Then-FBI Director James Comey said of the 30,000 emails, 113 were determined to have contained classified information at the time they were sent. Comey said three of those had a marking indicating they were classified, and that 2,000 more were marked as classified after the fact by various agencies. The next day, the State Department explained what the three document markings suggesting classified material were all about. They had to do with what is known as "call sheets," not classified material. Before a secretary of state calls a foreign leader, staff members prepare a guide known as a call sheet. It gives the context for the call and the key points to hit during the conversation. Early in the process, a call sheet might be marked as sensitive, but by the time it reaches the secretary, it isn’t. "The process is then to move the call sheet, to change its markings to unclassified and deliver it to the secretary in a form that he or she can use," said then-State Department spokesperson John Kirby July 6, 2016, adding that the confidential markings resulted from human error. In a July 7, 2016, congressional hearing, Comey said he had not heard what the State Department had said about the call sheets. He explained that classified documents come with headers that give the classification level. Comey acknowledged that the documents in Clinton’s email had no headers. Asked whether the lack of a header would have told Clinton that the material was unclassified, Comey said, "That would be a reasonable inference." 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 The State Department cited Clinton for three security violations for failing to follow department protocols. In 2017, after she appealed, the department dropped two, but affirmed one. A 2018 Justice Department review of how the FBI handled its investigation noted that prosecutors found no evidence that Clinton and her colleagues ever intended to put classified materials into their email exchanges. "The emails in question lacked proper classification markings," the report said. "The senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to ‘talk around’ classified information." State Department’s own review of Clinton’s email use The State Department reviewed thousands of documents in Clinton’s emails, and questioned dozens of State Department employees. The investigation took place primarily during Donald Trump’s presidency, running from July 2016 to September 2019. It focused on the general problem of spillage, the sharing of unmarked but nevertheless classified details. The investigation found 38 people were responsible for 91 violations. It found 497 additional violations in which no one could be held culpable. The State Department concluded that Clinton’s use of a private email server "carried an increased risk of compromise or inadvertent disclosure." (The 2018 Justice Department review found no evidence that the server was hacked.) On the other hand, State Department investigators concluded that although staff members sometimes shared information that they shouldn’t have, by and large, they "were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations." They noted that "none of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified." They also said there was "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." Clinton’s longtime attorney, David Kendall, highlighted the State Department’s findings as evidence for Clinton’s claim. Ambiguities in the classification system There is debate over the classification of material in the emails. "There is no one standard for classification," Thomas Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, told PolitiFact in early August. "It's in the eye of the beholder. We have published thousands of examples of documents and parts of documents that one agency considered declassified and another agency kept classified; and in hundreds of cases, the difference was between two components of the same agency." Blanton said that in Clinton’s case, he saw signs of a rift between the State Department and intelligence agencies. The State Department reviewers, he said, initially found no classified material, while the intelligence agencies said there were potentially hundreds of instances. Our ruling Clinton claimed she had "zero emails that were classified." At the conclusion of all investigations, no documents included in her emails were found to be marked as classified. However, hundreds of bits of information that State Department officials considered classified did end up in emails on Clinton’s private server. Clinton is technically correct, but she sidesteps the references to classified information that staffers introduced into the email chains. We rate this claim Half Tru

Joe Biden appointed a 'satanist' to the White House Multiple social media posts are claiming President Joe Biden appointed a devil-worshiping "satanist" to help lead the nation’s response to the ongoing monkeypox outbreak. In August, President Biden appointed Dr. Demetre Daskalakis as monkeypox response deputy coordinator. Daskalakis is a public health advocate and expert on health issues affecting the LGBTQ community. Conservative commentators and news sites then published several photos of Daskalakis wearing a leather harness and various apparel displaying a pentacle symbol, as well as a tattoo he has bearing the same symbol. "Joe Biden appointed a Satanist to the White House," read one of the Facebook posts, published Sept. 8. 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 Facebook.) Daskalakis confronted the allegation in a Sept. 9 interview with The Advocate, a magazine covering LGBTQ issues and news. "I am certainly not a satanist," Daskalakis, who is openly gay, said in the interview. Asked by The Advocate why this charge seems to have surfaced, he said it was because he wears "high-fashion harnesses by Zana Bayne," a designer of leather goods. A spokesperson for the CDC also confirmed in an email to PolitiFact that there is zero credence to this claim. This claim appeared to gain traction after the Daily Caller, a conservative news site, published a Sept. 8 story drawing attention to the doctor’s personal Instagram page. Now set to private, the Instagram account included photos of Daskalakis in a leather harness that bears a pentacle, a five-point star surrounded by a circle. The images featured in the story have since been published out of context elsewhere and across social media. Featured Fact-check Kathy Hochul stated on October 25, 2022 in a debate The state is absorbing the cost of overtime pay for farmworkers, and farm owners do not have to pay any more. By Jill Terreri Ramos • November 5, 2022 They do not mean Daskalakis is a Satan worshiper. The symbol, also sometimes called a pentagram, is often associated with magic and the occult. But the emblem has a long history and has been associated with numerous religions and nations throughout history. Daskalakis is an accomplished public health advocate who has also helped guide the administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as offered guidance to both local and federal agencies to help curb the spread of HIV. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University, a master of public health from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and an M.D. from New York University. He studied infectious diseases on a fellowship at Harvard and served as deputy commissioner for the Division of Disease Control at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. He is widely published and recognized as a leading voice in the LGBTQ community. We reviewed articles about Daskalakis over the length of his career and did not find evidence that he is a satanist. But we did find a story in which he said once before that he is not. In October 2014, the New York Post published a story about a boutique fitness hub, called Monster Cycle, that embraced a cheeky occult theme as part of its gimmick. Daskalakis was one of three founders, according to the article. "We don’t worship the devil, we’re not Satan followers," one of Daskalakis’ business partners said at the time. "We’re just sort of taking that (edgy) energy and making it more positive." Our ruling A conservative news site said Daskalakis is a "satanist." Daskalakis and the CDC have said he is not. We find no evidence to the contrary. We rate this claim False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this repor

Joe Biden called Pope Francis the “famous African American baseball player in America. Critics of President Joe Biden have frequently shared on social media edited videos where his remarks are cut short or taken out of context to make him look incomptent. Footage shared in a Facebook post from a meeting between Biden and Pope Francis is no different. The caption and subtitles for a seven-second video of an interaction between the two men claims that Biden told the pope: "you’re the famous African American baseball player." The pope seems to respond with, "I know, I know," and the video ends. 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 Facebook.) Similar claims circulated on social media in 2021 shortly after the meeting took place. But by including only a small portion of the interaction between the two men, the Facebook post leaves out crucial context that shows Biden wasn’t talking about the pope. Biden met with several European leaders ahead of the G-20 summit in Italy in October 2021. He also went to the Vatican where he talked with the pope for nearly 90 minutes. Footage of the meeting released by the Vatican showed Biden was telling the pope a story about Satchel Paige, a Black baseball pitcher who made his major league debut in 1948 when he was 42. Paige went on to become the oldest player in major league history at the age of 59. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 27, 2022 in a post Video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene planted pipe bombs at Republican and Democratic party headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021. By Gabrielle Settles • October 31, 2022 Biden, 79, in his talk with the pope, 85, was using Paige as an allegory for aging. It’s unclear what Biden said as he starts the story; a transcript from CNN of the conversation describes the start of Biden’s sentence as being "inaudible." C-SPAN’s caption on footage from the meeting has the president starting the sentence with the words "the most." Based on PolitiFact’s viewings of the clip, it’s possible Biden starts the story saying "there’s a" and goes on to say "famous African American baseball player in America." Biden continued: "He didn't get to play in Major League Baseball until he was 45 years old because he was Black. And he was a pitcher, he threw the ball. And usually, pitchers lose their arm when they're 35. He pitched to win on his 47th birthday. The press walked into the locker room and said — his name was Satchel Paige — they came, and the guy said, ‘Satch, no one's ever pitched to win at age 47, how do you feel about pitching a win on your birthday?'" Biden quoted Paige as responding, "That's not how I look at age. I look at it this way: how old would you be if you didn't know how old you were?" "You're 65, I'm 60," Biden jokingly told the pope. Biden previously talked about Paige and his age when he welcomed the Los Angeles Dodgers to the White House in 2021 and during remarks he gave on Veterans Day in 2021. Our ruling A Facebook video claims Biden called the pope the "famous African American baseball player" when the two met in 2021. The video was taken out of context from a longer exchange. Biden was telling the pope a story about a baseball player. At no point did he confuse the pope for the player. We rate this claim Fals

“Ron Johnson just came out in favor of a federal abortion ban. The U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, featuring incumbent Republican Ron Johnson and Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes, is full of sharp contrasts. And sharp claims. Consider this Aug. 17 tweet from Barnes, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision throwing out Roe v. Wade: "Ron Johnson just came out in favor of a federal abotion ban. We knew this was coming … he is doing everything he can to drag us back in time and strip women of their rights and freedoms." For this check, we’ll focus on the first portion of the tweet: Does Johnson, who is seeking a third term, back a federal abortion ban? And did he announce such a position recently? We’ll start with a truism of politics: The closer you get to an election, particularly a hotly contested one, the stronger statements are framed — and often the more facts get lost in the matter. In this case, there should be little surprise that the two sides differ on what the word "ban" means. But there’s little question that Johnson’s position has not suddenly changed dramatically. Let’s dig in. A look at Johnson’s record on the issue The Supreme Court decision, of course, undid the constitutional right to an abortion granted under the Roe v. Wade ruling, sending the matter to the states. Abortion-rights supports say one way to address the situation now is to pass a measure permitting abortions — in effect, making the standards under Roe part of federal law. Abortion foes, meanwhile, have long worked to pass federal laws limiting abortion. When we asked Barnes’ campaign to back up the claim, a spokesperson pointed to several things, including those GOP-led efforts and Johnson’s support for them. First, they cited a 2019 bill that called for prison time for performing or attempting an abortion after a fetus reaches 20 weeks or more, except in cases in which pregnancy endangers the mother’s life or results from rape or incest. Johnson was a co-sponsor of the bill, according to Congress.gov and voted in favor of it on Feb. 25, 2020, according to Senate records. According to Congressional records, Johnson also supported similar bills in 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2021. This is where the definition of a ban comes in. The Johnson side says "a ban is a ban is a ban." That’s a quote from Ben Voelkel, with the Johnson campaign. In other words, unless abortion is prohibited entirely, with no exceptions, it is not a ban. Meanwhile, the Barnes side would argue that, yes, a ban is a ban. That is, any sort of ban — even one that starts at 20 weeks of pregnancy — is still "a ban." They note Johnson himself used the word "ban" in describing his support for the matter in a May 2022 segment on Newsmax: "I signed on to a national bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks." (That four-second clip is even featured on the YouTube page for the Barnes campaign) But consider the remainder of the Barnes tweet for context. He says of Johnson, "He is doing everything he can to drag us back in time and strip women of their rights and freedoms." 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 phrasing leaves the impression that Johnson would ban abortion entirely, or at least lets readers reach that conclusion. The bottom line: Barnes does not fully make his case on this point. What has happened since the Supreme Court decision? We also need to take a closer look at what Johnson has been saying since the Supreme Court decision. After all, Barnes claimed Johnson "recently" came out in support of a ban, which is hard to reconcile with the idea of a measure he has sponsored for a decade. To that end, both sides pointed us to the same link: an Aug. 17 interview with Johnson published by the Washington County Daily News. In it, Johnson says he doesn’t think that Supreme Court justices or Congress should decide on when abortion is allowed, rather it should be up to the states: "I look forward to every state, the people in every state, hopefully having a serious, compassionate and sympathetic discussion to decide this question, and this is what needs to be decided. At what point does society have the responsibility to protect life? That’s the question on the table. I don’t think nine justices should decide it. I don’t think 535 members of Congress should decide it. I think it should be decided by the people, state by state, maybe sometime in the future." He even goes on to suggest a referendum — or even multiple referendums — may be needed to fully sort through the issue in Wisconsin. "Whatever is the most direct way of having the people make that decision, OK," he said. "And, this may take multiple elections. It might take a different referendum to hone in on where does Wisconsin, where do the people, believe society has the responsibility to protect life. Again, I’ve got my own views, other people have their own. Let’s find out where, where is that center." But the Barnes campaign points to a separate line from the same interview in which Johnson says the federal government may have a role after all: "You know, maybe Congress can take a look at what the states have done and say, ‘We probably ought to place this limit here,’ based on new information or whatever." So, Johnson is saying the states should decide, but the federal government might still need to step in and draw the lines differently. Generally speaking, all of that is consistent with what Johnson has said in other venues since the ruling, and on his website. It is also in line with what he said in May 2019, in an interview at the state Republican party convention, in which he said he opposed an Alabama law that banned abortion after six weeks — a period before which women may not even know they are pregnant. (That, opponents said, effectively banned all abortions.) In that interview, Johnson said he wished the Supreme Court had not legalized abortion in 1973 in the Roe case, noting: "Had that played out state by state, my guess, we would have pretty much a uniform standard, and we’d protect life in the womb of a mother far earlier than we do now." So, whether someone agrees with Johnson’s position or not, Barnes also overplays his hand by suggesting that Johnson is somehow going further than he had before, in the wake of the new ruling. Our ruling Barnes claimed that Johnson "just came out in favor of a federal abortion ban." Johnson has said he supports a federal ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but that’s not what Barnes said or how he framed it. In the rhetoric he used, Barnes made it sound as if it could be an outright ban — no abortion ever. What’s more, Barnes also made it appear as if Johnson changed positions in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. He did not. Since the decision, Johnson has emphasized that states should decide — though he has left open the door to the federal government stepping in at some point, if necessary. Our definition for 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' });

As a mayor, "John Fetterman chased down an innocent, unarmed Black man," wielded a shotgun and "falsely accused the man, triggering a confrontation with police. An ad draws on details from a 2013 incident to make the case that Pennsylvania’s Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is "reckless and risky." Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman was mayor of a Pittsburgh suburb at the time. Now he’s running against Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz in a Nov. 8 contest that could determine which party takes control of the Senate. In the ad, paid for by the Oz-supporting super PAC American Leadership Action, a narrator says: "As mayor of Braddock, John Fetterman chased down an innocent, unarmed Black man." Fetterman said he thought he heard a dozen gunshots near his home and called 911, according to news reports at the time. Then, he chased the person he believed to be the gunman. The man was Chris Miyares, then 28 years old, and the date was Jan. 26, 2013. Police said Miyares was wearing headphones and exercise clothes. They found he did not have a weapon and released him without filing any charges. The ad plays a clip from a TV news report at the time, showing Miyares telling a reporter that Fetterman "followed me into North Braddock and pulled a shotgun and aimed it at my chest." In another clip borrowed from the same news report, Miyares says: "I mean, there’s a mayor with a shotgun and six other cops surrounding me, what else could I do but this?" He raises both of his arms in the air. And there’s footage of Fetterman being interviewed. He says: "I believe I did the right thing, but I may have broken the law during the course of it." Words on the screen say: "Fetterman was unapologetic." The ad does not show Fetterman’s next words from the interview, which were: "I’m certainly not above the law." Most of the details in the claim are true, though some points need clarification. TV news reports from the time American Leadership Action told PolitiFact its ad is supported by three news stories, cited in the ad. The video clips in the ad come from a report by Pittsburgh television station WTAE that aired five days after the incident. A version of the story posted on the TV station’s website and a longer video of the station’s interview with Fetterman offered more details. The news reports did not suggest that the incident was racial profiling. According to WTAE’s reporting, the incident unfolded as follows: Fetterman said he was outside his home when he heard what sounded like a dozen rounds of assault-rifle gunfire. "I didn’t know if it was a rampage. I didn’t know if it was a drive-by. I didn’t understand. No one could know what was going on at that point, other than a large number of shots were fired from what sounded like a high-powered rifle. At that point, I made a decision as a parent, and as a mayor, to intervene until the first responders could get there and sort it all out," he said. Featured Fact-check America First Legal stated on November 1, 2022 in an ad “Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to non-white citizens first." By Tom Kertscher • November 5, 2022 Fetterman said he saw "an individual dressed all in black, with his face obscured, running away," so he gave chase in his pickup truck, into neighboring North Braddock. It’s unclear whether Fetterman knew, before detaining him, that Miyares is Black. "After two warnings and asking him to just stay put," Fetterman said, he removed his 20-gauge shotgun from his truck. "I ordered him twice, ‘Just stay right there,’ and he refused. That’s when I felt like I needed to make sure because I didn’t know what was coming." He said he displayed the gun, but did not point it at Miyares. Fetterman said he told Miyares they would wait there "and we’re going to get this all sorted out when the police arrive." Miyares said the sounds Fetterman heard did not come from gunfire, but from bottle rockets set off by three kids in a parking lot. "He’s trying to make it out that it’s OK, he’s trying to justify what he did," Miyares said in the news report. More details from police report A Braddock police report filed on the day of the incident also offered more details. When officers arrived on the scene, two people told them they heard what they thought were several gunshots. Then officers heard Fetterman call out to them. His truck was parked in the middle of the street and he was holding a shotgun with Miyares standing near him. Fetterman told officers he displayed his gun to get Miyares to stop. The police report said Fetterman "continued to yell and state that he knows this male was shooting, but did not see Miyares holding a gun nor shooting a gun." Miyares told police he ran daily in the area and was running toward his home when Fetterman confronted him. "Miyares was very cooperative, but was upset that Fetterman pulled a shotgun on him," the report said. "Miyares was advised why he was stopped and he understood." The police report said Miyares did not have a weapon. Miyares was released with no charges filed. We reached out to Fetterman’s campaign, but it declined to comment. Our ruling An ad from a group supporting Oz claimed that as mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, Fetterman "chased down an innocent, unarmed Black man," wielded a shotgun and "falsely accused the man, triggering a confrontation with police." In the 2013 incident, Fetterman said that after hearing what he thought were gunshots, he chased a person. It is unclear whether Fetterman knew at the outset that the man, Miyares, is Black. Fetterman displayed a shotgun to detain Miyares until police arrived. Police said Fetterman told officers "he knows this male was shooting." Police said Miyares was unarmed, released at the scene and not charged with a crime. The claim is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly Tru

Barack Obama urged people on Sept. 10, 2001, to “report to work tomorrow” at the World Trade Center On the 21st anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a screenshot of what looks like an old YouTube post from former President Barack Obama spread online. In the image, the video appears paused on a photo of Obama altered to make his eyes look yellow. The video title: "President Obama — Please go to work tomorrow." It also says "published on Sept. 10, 2001" by "BarackObama.com," and includes this description: "If you work in the Twin Towers please report to work tomorrow and thank you." Instagram posts sharing this image 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 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 This isn’t an authentic video announcement from Obama. YouTube didn’t exist in 2001, and Obama wasn’t president, or even a U.S. senator, then. RELATED VIDEO YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim uploaded the first video — a clip of him at a zoo — on April 23, 2005. We rate claims this is a real video message from Obama Pants on Fire!

“North Korea confirms it has landed a man on the sun. News outlets have reported that North Korea wants to plant its flag on the moon, but in the meantime, has it landed a man on the sun? "North Korea confirms it has landed a man on the sun," reads the text in a social media post. Above it, an image shows what looks like a still from a news broadcast with a picture of a rocket launch. 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 includes a website — tweaktown.com — where we found the story about North Korea landing a man on the sun, posted in January 2014. 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 It cites as a source waterfordwhispersnews.com, which posted a story at the time with this headline: "North Korea lands first ever man on the sun, confirms central news agency." But the website has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Readers who click on it will learn that Waterford Whispers News is a satirical site. Even so, anyone who is trying to land on the sun should be advised that it’s a giant ball of heated gas that’s about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit with no solid surface. We rate claims that North Korea landed a man on the sun Pants on Fire.

Queen Elizabeth II was a reptile Queen Elizabeth II’s death has inspired remembrances, criticism and a few conspiracy theories. Among them: that she was a lizard person. "The queen and Prince Philip are not human," says the speaker in a TikTok video shared Sept. 8 on Facebook. Text in the video says: "reptilian queen of England" and "the queen is reptilian." "The Queen is dead but this draco went to the great grandson," another Sept. 8 post says, referring to the groundless theory that the royal family is descended from reptilians in a constellation called Draco. "This is what he was made for, the bloodline!" A third post, from July, says "y’all know the queen of England is reptile." 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 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 Facebook.) Claims that Elizabeth and other members of the royal family were reptilian are unfounded and part of a long-running conspiracy theory. In 1998, Time reported, former BBC reporter David Icke published a book called "The Biggest Secret," which claimed members of the royal family "are nothing more than reptiles with crowns." But it’s not just monarchs who have been targeted with this scaly claim. President Joe Biden has similarly been accused of being a reptile. In 2021, we fact-checked a claim that a video proved he wasn’t human because a snake had been seen emerging from his jacket during a debate with then-President Donald Trump. It wasn’t a snake, but a rosary Biden wears to remember his late son, Beau. And Joe Biden is human, just as the queen was. We rate these posts Pants on Fir

A “13 or 15 year old boy escapes Buckingham Palace” in video An old debunked claim about a naked child escaping Buckingham Palace is getting fresh attention on social media in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death. "13 or 15 year old boy escapes Buckingham Palace," reads the text in a TikTok video shared on Instagram on Sept. 9. "How do you explain this?" In the clip, an apparent tourist appears to zoom her phone camera in on a naked person using a bedsheet to descend from a palace window before falling. 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 Bill O'Reilly stated on December 9, 2013 in a broadcast of the "O'Reilly Factor" "The 'Denver Post' has actually hired an editor to promote pot." By Jon Greenberg • December 12, 2013 A simple internet search reveals that this is fake, and that it’s been scrutinized by fact-checkers before. The video first went viral back in 2015, though then it was described as showing a man climbing out of the window, not a child. It was uploaded on what appeared to be a tourist’s YouTube channel. But it was fake — a promotion by E! for its fictional show "The Royals." The clip went viral. But it doesn’t show a child escaping the palace. We rate that claim Pants on Fire!

“Prince was sacrificed for (Queen Elizabeth II’s) 90th birthday. Queen Elizabeth II’s death brought her 70-year reign to an end. Unending, meanwhile, are the steady flow of queen memes that preceded and followed her Sept. 8 passing. One such social media post claimed the United Kingdom’s longest-reigning monarch had a sinister connection to the death of the American musician, Prince. The post was an Instagram video, and it began by showing a screenshot of a Google search for Elizabeth’s birthday, April 21, 1926. The video then cut to a screenshot of the results for "Prince death date": April 21, 2016. "Yeah, in case you didn’t know, Prince was sacrificed for her 90th birthday," a man in the video says. "If you think it’s a f—ing game, you stupid." 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 Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence that Prince’s death was a "sacrifice" or part of any greater conspiracy involving Elizabeth. Prince, born Prince Rogers Nelson, died at age 57 after being found unresponsive at this Paisley Park estate in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Minnesota health officials determined Prince died of an accidental fentanyl overdose after unknowingly taking counterfeit Vicodin laced with the highly potent synthetic opioid. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Ocean, Elizabeth was celebrating her 90th birthday in Windsor, England, where she was greeting well-wishers. There is no evidence to suggest the two events were related, and the man in the Instagram video makes no effort to back up his claim other than pointing out the Queen’s birthday was the same day as Prince’s death. We rate this claim Pants on Fir

Video shows Queen Elizabeth II “feeding Africans like chickens. Queen Elizabeth II’s death has sparked reflection on her seven-decade reign and reinvigorated criticism of the British Empire and colonialism in Africa. But a video spreading on social media doesn’t show the late monarch "feeding Africans." The video shows a woman in a white dress and white hat throwing items to the ground. People at her feet scramble to scoop them up. "Queen Elizabeth II feeding Africans like chickens decades back," one Facebook post sharing the video said. "I wonder whom of these was my grandmother," read another. "The saddest part of this story is that Africans have vehemently refused to admit that Queen Elisa was the devil." 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 Facebook.) A reverse Google image search of a still from the video brought us to an Australian arts organization’s website that was promoting screenings of "A World Vision," which the site said "recontextualizes" Gabriel Veyre’s film "Enfants annamites ramassant des sapèques devant la pagode des dames." 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 That French title loosely translates in English to mean children from Annam picking up sapèque. Annam is the name for French-governed Vietnam and sapèque are coins issued by France in the late 19th century for use in Indochina. The film is from 1889, about 37 years before Elizabeth was born. Zooming in on the woman throwing the coins shows she bore little resemblance to the famous British monarch. A French-language description of the film, dug up by Brecht Castel, a fact-checker with Belgian news organization Knack, identifies the coin-throwing woman as "Madame Paul Doumer." Around the time the film was made, Paul Doumer was appointed governor general of Indochina. He later served as president of France. Madame Doumer was his wife. As India Today reported, Veyre traveled the French colonies in Vietnam, shooting photographs and movies for the French government to exhibit at the 1900 Paris Exposition Universelle. Posts that claim this video shows Queen Elizabeth II feeding children like animals are wrong. We rate them False.

“Queen Elizabeth shot dead in Detroit. The United Kingdom’s longest-reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth II died on Sept. 8, spurring social media rumors about what caused the 96-year-old’s death. One of the more outlandish posts claimed the queen died by violence in the United States. "Queen Elizabeth shot dead in Detroit," read an image shared on Instagram on Sept. 8. The post also features a "Rap TV" logo. 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 Facebook.) (Screenshot from Instagram.) Rap TV is a hip-hop-focused news outlet that has for years been the target of memes that parody its social media posts and reporting style. It is unclear whether this particular image was shared as a joke — perhaps as one of many memes of the queen — but the claim is inaccurate. 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 royal family’s official account announced Sept. 8 that Elizabeth had "died peacefully at Balmoral" that afternoon. Just hours earlier, officials for the royal family had said that the queen was under medical supervision at Balmoral Castle, the monarch’s summer home in Scotland. The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/VfxpXro22W— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) September 8, 2022 During a 1959 trip to Canada and the United States the queen explored the Detroit River, some of the Great Lakes and passed under the Mackinac Bridge on the royal yacht Britannia. The State Department has no record of Elizabeth visiting the U.S. since a state visit to commemorate the English settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, on its 400th anniversary in 2007. Misinformation about the British royal family and the queen has spread online for years, and this claim about the queen’s death is no different. Our ruling An image shared on Instagram claimed that Queen Elizabeth II was "shot dead in Detroit." She died peacefully in Scotland on Sept. 8, according to officials from the royal family. There’s no evidence that the queen has been anywhere near Detroit in years. We rate this claim Pants on Fir

The federal government is providing free solar panel installation and $8,500 incentive checks to eligible homeowners A viral video claims that eligible homeowners can get solar panels installed for free on the U.S. government’s dime. "If you qualify, you can get them to come out and install solar panels for you at no cost out of pocket and then say goodbye to your electric bill and get an $8,500 incentive on top of that," says the speaker in a video posted Sept. 3 on Facebook. 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 Facebook.) We found no evidence from the U.S. Energy Department to support the claim, based on a search of websites, press releases and news articles. Homeowners are eligible for federal tax credits for solar installations, but not free panels or a cash incentive. The U.S. Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment. The Solar Energy Technologies Office, part of the Energy Department, says on its website that it does not provide financial assistance or payouts to households installing solar energy systems. Eligible homeowners may qualify for a 26% tax credit if they installed solar panel systems in 2020 or 2021, or a 30% tax credit if installation occurs between 2022 and 2032, according to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, part of the Energy Department. 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 Although these credits translate to dollar-for-dollar reductions to the amount of income tax owed, it does not mean the federal government is cutting homeowners a check. The tax credits come from passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law Aug. 16 and which pledges $750 billion to bolster health policy initiatives and curb climate change. The Sept. 3 video is not the first time these claims have been floated and debunked. Our ruling A Sept. 3 video claimed that qualified homeowners could get solar panels installed for free and receive $8,500 "incentive" checks from the federal government. We found no evidence of a federal program that provides free panels and incentive checks. Some homeowners may be eligible for tax credits related to solar panel installation, but that is not equivalent to a cash payment. We rate this claim False.

Video proves “space is fake. A video of an astronaut climbing back into a spacecraft is drawing ridicule from Instagram users who believe Earth is flat. In the clip, as a line from the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ "Californication" plays — "Space may be the final frontier, but it’s made in a Hollywood basement" — a spacesuited astronaut climbs back into an entrance and grabs at what looks like a soft, pliable material to cover a hole accessing space. "Look at that airtight flap!" a description of the video recently shared on Instagram says. "Go NASA! Space is fake. Research flat earth." 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 footage is authentic, a NASA spokesperson confirmed for PolitiFact in an emailed statement. It shows a spacewalk outside of the International Space Station. But the suggestion that it shows a large-scale game of pretend is wrong.. The flap visible in the video is a fabric flap that protects the space station’s hatch from environmental hazards such as debris and solar radiation. Unlike the fabric flap visible in the video, which opens outward and closes inward, the space station’s hatch opens inward, so it can be opened only when the airlock, a resealable airtight compartment with two doors, is in a vacuum, the statement from NASA said. 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 "Otherwise, the air pressure inside would hold it closed," NASA’s statement said of the hatch. That hatch isn’t visible in the video because it’s inside the airlock, according to the NASA statement. The agency also rebutted claims that the earth is flat. "Humans have known that the Earth is round for more than 2,000 years," NASA said in the statement. "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." Today scientists use GPS and satellites to measure Earth’s size and shape. We rate claims that this video proves space is fake Pants on Fire! RELATED: NASA photos of the moon and Earth show that "space is fake."

Astronaut Karen Nyberg filmed what “was supposedly a video from space” in front of a green screen Karen Nyberg has served on two spaceflights, spending a cumulative 180 days in space. But recent videos on Instagram cast doubt on the NASA astronaut’s accomplished career, suggesting that she was never in space — just in a studio. "This was supposedly a video from space," read the caption of one Instagram post that shared the video. "As you can see, there is a little bit of green screen theatrics in the back." The video shows two frames of a woman sitting on an exercise ball. In the frame on the left, a green screen is visible and the woman hands items, including a bag of corn chips, to someone in a green suit. In the second panel, the woman appears to be sitting in space and the items appear to move on their own, floating weightlessly into the air. "Astronaut Karen Nyberg @ the International Space Station," text flanking the video says. 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.) Neither NASA nor Nyberg’s representatives responded to PolitiFact’s queries about the post. But Teyit, a Turkish fact-checking organization, reported that Nyberg told the outlet she was not involved in the video and isn’t the woman in it. Although the woman in the Instagram video and Nyberg share physical similarities, we watched footage of the astronaut speaking and her voice doesn’t match the voice of the woman in the post. Also, someone off camera in the Instagram video calls the woman "Paige," not Karen. 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 That’s because the woman in the video is Paige Windle, not Nyberg, and she created it with David Weiss, who hosts the podcast "The Flat Earth Podcast" and believes the earth is flat. A 2020 Wired story described Windle as Weiss’ partner. "Paige and I were doing a silly demonstration on the show Globebusters showing how green screens work," Weiss told us in an email. "If you listen to the dialogue, you can hear that we are not pretending to be anyone other than ourselves. Someone on one of the video platforms took the clip and claimed it was Karen Nyberg and lots of channels mirrored it." Weiss sent us the original green screen video that was posted in his YouTube channel about a year ago. It was also posted on his TikTok account Aug. 4 correcting people who claimed Windle was Nyberg. "Karen Nyberg is a space faking fraud but this is not her so stop saying it is," the post says. In an Aug. 23 TikTok post sharing the same video from Instagram, text appears over the clip reading "NOT Karen Nyberg." "Anyone who can Google knows this was a mock up video for kids," one person wrote in the post’s comments. Weiss replied: "Actually it was a mock up video making fun of NASA for adults." We rate claims that this video shows Nyberg pretending to be in space False. RELATED: NASA photos of the moon and Earth show that "space is fake."

Says President Joe Biden “recently said that 48.8% of Wisconsin voters are threats to democracy. Ahead of the midterm elections, President Joe Biden has made waves with comments he made in several recent speeches, including one in Wisconsin. In a Sept. 1 prime-time speech in Philadelphia, Biden called out his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, and "MAGA Republicans," saying they "represent extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic." Biden doubled down on the point during his Sept. 5 appearance at Milwaukee’s Labor Fest, criticizing "extreme MAGA Republicans," referring to the former president’s Make America Great Again slogan. Republicans, both nationally and statewide, have seized on the comments and said they are a condemnation of all Republicans. That includes the Republican Governors Association. The group’s spokesperson, Maddie Anderson, wrote in an email blast on Sept. 5 — the day of the president’s visit to Milwaukee — that Biden "recently said that 48.8% of Wisconsin voters are threats to democracy." But that’s not what Biden said — and the extrapolation the Republican Governors Association took is a pretty big jump. Let’s dig in. Biden acknowledged not all Republicans endorse ‘extreme ideology’ When asked for backup for the association’s claim, Anderson pointed to Biden’s remarks, the criticism they drew and the percentage of Wisconsin voters who cast their vote for Trump in the 2020 election. That’s the 48.8%. We’ll get the easy part out of the way first. Biden did not speak specifically about Wisconsin "MAGA Republican" voters — even during his visit to Milwaukee. The remarks were far more general, referencing America and Americans. And Biden aimed his comments at what he termed as the extreme end of the Republican party, not all Republicans, citing those who supported overturning the results of the 2020 election. He specifically drew a line between those he described as supporting threats to democracy and more mainline Republicans, whom Biden said he respects, noting: "Not every Republican is a MAGA Republican, not every Republican embraces that extreme ideology." 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 So, for the Republican Governors Association to ascribe the claim to all 48.8% of state voters who voted for Trump is disingenuous at best — even if its aim was scoring a rhetorical point. In Wisconsin, views about Trump — even among Republicans — come in various shades. "There is no single, widely accepted definition of the term (MAGA Republicans)," said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll. "Trying to specify a single number is not possible." But polls from June and August of this year demonstrate that the picture is far from as uniform as the Republican Governors Association suggests. The combined summer polls found that Trump was seen favorably by 39% of registered voters, and 32% were not very or not at all confident in the accuracy of the 2020 election. Splitting it differently, 26% of voters were both favorable to Trump and not confident in the accuracy of the election. In the August poll, only 29% of all voters said they would like to see Trump run for president again in 2024. Although a majority of Republicans polled said they viewed Trump favorably and wanted him to run in 2024, some did not. The trend holds nationally, too. In an Aug. 25 NBC News poll, 41% of Republicans polled said they identified more with Trump than with the Republican Party. That means more than half identify more with the party than with Trump — in other words, they may have voted along party lines in 2020, but don’t subscribe fully to Trump’s ideology. Our ruling The Republican Governors Association claimed that Biden "recently said that 48.8% of Wisconsin voters are threats to democracy." But the president clearly separated Republicans who embrace Trump’s far-right, election-denial positions from mainstream Republicans, who still may have cast a vote for Trump in 2020. And in Wisconsin, recent polling shows that there is not uniform support for Trump or his views, even among Republicans. That would mean Biden’s "MAGA Republicans" comment wouldn’t refer to every Wisconsinite who voted Republican in the last election. We rate this claim False. 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' });

Video shows Hillary Clinton dressed as a space cult leader in a satanic ritual A video that shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a long, sparkly purple robe is being shared on social media out of context, and with some sinister suggestions that don’t hold up to scrutiny. "Breaking," reads a description of a video being shared on Instagram. "Leaked video shows HIllary dressed as space cult leader during annual earth ritual." In the clip, someone dressed like the Disney movie character Maleficent, makes some joking comments about her "species" before it cuts to Clinton inviting Ann Drake to the stage and saying, "There’s a lot that’s really wonderful about this gathering and this event tonight to —" The video then ends. "SATAN WORSHIPPERS," reads the caption on multiple Instagram posts sharing the video 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 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 Facebook.) Searching for the text in the video’s description, we found this Next News Network YouTube video that reveals about three minutes in that the "annual Earth ritual" is a birthday party. In the YouTube video, Clinton’s comments can be heard in full: "There’s a lot that’s really wonderful about this gathering and this event tonight, to be brought together by Ann and to help her celebrate her birthday." Drake, president and founder of a woman’s leadership organization called Lincoln Road Enterprises and the former chief executive officer of DSC Logistics, is Clinton’s friend. We found an invitation online for the party called "Close Encounters of a New Kind" that happened over Labor Day weekend. For one of the events, guests were encouraged to wear "space" and "future-focused" costumes. We rate this post False.

Russia “has not lost anything” in its invasion of Ukraine Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke little of Ukraine when he delivered a lengthy speech before world economic leaders. But when a journalist asked him how Russia has fared since its invasion of the neighboring country, Putin denied it had suffered any loss at all. "We have not lost anything and will not lose anything," Putin said Sept. 7. The statement came at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia. Russian journalist Ilya Doronov prefaced his question about Russia’s health with his own analysis of what he said were two impacts. "Economically, we have seen that our usual way of life is changing, when we had banking systems, carmakers, other manufacturers, and then they suddenly left Russia," Doronov said. "And there is the moral aspect, where families become divided over this, when relatives on different sides of the border stop talking, things like that. "I have a question: for our country — what do you think we have gained and what we have lost, as a state, since February 24?" In his answer, Putin acknowledged polarization happening "both in the world and within Russia." But he said the country has gained because "we have strengthened our sovereignty." Putin’s response ignored the toll on human life on both sides since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. It also failed to account for the economic impact that sanctions have had on Russia. Precise figures of Russian lives lost are unavailable as the country has not regularly shared its estimates. But Russia has conceded loss of life: In March, it announced that 1,351 Russian troops had been killed. It has not released a total since then. Dr. Colin Kahl, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a press briefing on Aug. 8 that Russia has "probably" had up to 80,000 soldiers killed or wounded "in less than six months." U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told Parliament on Sept. 5, that he estimated that "more than 25,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives." Also, Russia has lost more than 5,000 military vehicles in the battle, according to Oryx, a group that tracks military losses around the world. Russia has also lost economically because of crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other nations, experts say. Eddie Fishman, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, called Putin’s statement of no losses "patently false." Fishman pointed to inflation and information about Russia’s gross domestic product, a measurement of economic health. "Even Russia's central bank projects a GDP contraction of 4 to 6% this year — which would make Russia's 2022 economic performance as bad as, if not worse, than the 1998 Russian financial crisis," he 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 Inflation in Russia was at 15.1% in July, up from 6.5% a year earlier, but down from a high of 17.8% in April. It’s higher than other world powers. U.S. inflation, for example, was at 8.5% in July, while the U.K. was at 10.1%. Russia’s central bank prediction of a 4 to 6% loss in GDP in 2022 is in line with analysis from the International Monetary Fund. In July, that organization of 189 member countries predicted a 6% drop in GDP for Russia this year. That is an improvement from an 8.5% drop it had predicted in April. "Putin’s comments are contradicted by his own central bank," said Scott Gehlbach, a political science professor at the University of Chicago. Gehlbach pointed to a report from the central bank in August that he said warned of the "substantial long-term economic consequences of Russia’s decoupling from the world economy." The report modeled three three scenarios. In one, it found a worsening geopolitical climate and further sanctions could lead to a year of continued high inflation and a lack of GDP growth until 2025. An internal Kremlin report also was not optimistic about Russia’s economy, Bloomberg News reported. The report, according to Bloomberg News, said Russia could face prolonged economic damage from sanctions. Maxim Reshetnikov, Russia’s economy minister, told the news outlet the forecasts are "analytical estimates" used to show "what would happen if we don’t resist, don’t do anything." "Russia's economy may not have fallen off a cliff, but it is going through a major recession with no end in sight," Fishman said. Beyond its economic struggles, Russia has also lost access to technology and goods, as well as some of the nation’s brainpower. News reports have chronicled the flight of thousands of citizens, including Russian professionals from tech, arts and journalism sectors. A recent report released by Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service said about 419,000 people had fled the country since the start of 2022, according to reporting by The Daily Beast. "Russia has lost a great deal, of course — including access to Western technologies and the talent of many young Russians who are now in exile," said Susanne Wengle, an associate political science professor at the University of Notre Dame. "Putin’s claim that Russia lost nothing is a rhetorical strategy to diminish the value of these material and human assets." Gehlbach also noted the "large exodus of highly educated members of the Russian citizenry." "Putin is probably happy to see their backs," Gehlbach said, but "In the long or even medium run, their absence will have big, negative consequences for the Russian economy." Our ruling Putin stated that Russia has lost nothing since the country invaded neighboring Ukraine in February. Russia has suffered many losses. As many as 25,000 Russian soldiers are estimated to have died. Indicators from within Russia show the Russian economy has been damaged by international sanctions resulting from the war. And experts say thousands of Russians from many professional backgrounds, including tech and academia, have fled the nation. We rate Putin’s claim Fals

Video shows there weren’t Marines present during a recent speech by Joe Biden First came allegations that President Joe Biden hired actors to pose as the U.S. Marines that stood behind him during a recent speech in Philadelphia. (Wrong.) Then came the claim that there were no Marines at all thanks to some digital sleight of hand. "Marines??" read the text below a TikTok video shared Sept. 7 on Instagram. "Were they really there?" The video appears to show someone using a phone to film a TV tuned to a Fox News broadcast. In the broadcast, Biden can be seen onstage at his Sept. 1 speech, with two U.S. Marines standing behind him. The person filming the TV with the phone then draws attention to another phone held by someone recording the speech from the audience. "Well there’s a person videoing on the phone in the audience and there are no Marines," the person can be heard saying. "There are no Marines there. What is going on?" "Everything is fake," the caption on the Instagram post said. Other users offered suggestions ranging from "holograms" to "CGI," computer-generated imagery. 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 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 screen on the phone in the video is blurry. Though Biden and first lady Jill Biden are visible in the Fox News broadcast, they’re unidentifiable smudges on the phone. But one Marine is visible, and the other is blocked from the phone’s view by Biden’s podium. We consulted Wael AbdAlmageed, founding director of the Visual Intelligence and Multimedia Analytics Laboratory at the University of Southern California. After reviewing the clip, AbdAlmageed told us he didn’t see evidence of "malicious manipulation," and pointed out that Marine to Biden’s left "does exist in the extremely low resolution phone camera." The Marine on the right, meanwhile, "is occluded by the podium, since the person using the phone is lower than and closer to the podium." Plenty of other cameras clearly captured both Marines. Images from Reuters, the The Associated Press, CNN, the European Pressphoto Agency and Getty Images show both military members standing well behind Biden in the shadows. We rate claims that Marines weren’t present during Biden’s speech False.

“The Russian army is withdrawing from Ukraine!” in September 202 Russian forces have faced mounting setbacks in Ukraine since fighting began six months ago. The military faced stiff Ukrainian resistance and is reportedly dealing with severe personnel shortages as the U.S. Defense Department estimates the number of Russian soldiers wounded or killed to be as high as 80,000. Now a Facebook post claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is ordering the complete withdrawal of troops from the country. "Ukraine has succeeded," the Sept. 3 post reads. "The Russian army is withdrawing from Ukraine!" The post features an eight-minute video with what sounds like a computer-generated voice narrating over military footage. The narration talks about Putin scheduling an emergency meeting with Russian officials at the Kremlin and admitting to losing the war in Ukraine. "(Putin) said loudly, ‘We are losing the war, everybody wake up, pack up, we have no choice but to win this war,’" the narrator says. "The authorities who heard these words of Putin were shot." 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 Facebook.) The video is similar to ones we have seen elsewhere on Facebook that use the war in Ukraine to spread misinformation about the conflict to drive up page views. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 22, 2022 in an Instagram post A CNN headline shows Uganda’s president saying he doesn’t support Ukraine because it would be “disgusting.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 24, 2022 We were unable to find any news stories corroborating the post’s claims about Russia withdrawing or politicians being shot. In fact, there have been stories about Russia pushing farther into the country. There have been previous reports of Russian withdrawals from parts of Ukraine, such as the city of Kharkiv and Snake Island, but nothing about a total retreat. The Ukrainian military said in a Sept. 7 Facebook post that Russian forces have been pushing farther inland into the country from eastern Ukraine. Russia has had a foothold on Ukraine’s eastern region and a swath of its southeastern coastline since the invasion began. A withdrawal from the area is unlikely, Andrei Kelin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told Reuters in an interview in July. Putin has never publicly said the invasion of Ukraine has been a failure. After this Facebook post was made, Putin delivered a Sept. 7 speech in which he said the military will continue with its invasion of Ukraine. Our ruling A Facebook post and video claims Russia is ending its conflict with Ukraine and withdrawing from the country. It also claimed Putin admitted that Russia was losing the war and ordered politicians he told this to shot. There is no evidence to support this. We rate this claim Fals

“Here in Nevada, the DMV registers everybody (to vote) and so that means illegals. They don’t check. A Nevada Republican has wrongly suggested that the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles is swelling the voter rolls with immigrants who are in the country illegally. The claim was floated on Aug. 9 during a podcast by Steve Bannon, a one-time adviser to former President Donald Trump. Bannon said "mass illegal immigration" has created a "problem with voting." He invited Jim Marchant, the Republican candidate for Nevada secretary of state, to discuss the "illegal alien invasion." Marchant then suggested that the Nevada secretary of state and officials at the Department of Motor Vehicles allow people who are in the country illegally to join the voter rolls. "The illegal aliens that are coming in are a huge issue when it comes to voting," Marchant said during the podcast. "Here in Nevada, the DMV registers everybody, and so that means illegals. They don’t check. They are relying on the secretary of state to do the checking and either kick them off the voter rolls or not, which they are not doing." But that’s not true. The Nevada DMV takes several steps to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote. Marchant, a former Nevada state assemblyman, said during the podcast that if he’s elected, he will ensure only U.S. citizens register to vote. But he didn’t explain how he would accomplish that and whether his steps would differ from the ones government officials already take. Marchant will face Democrat Cisco Aguilar, a lawyer and former Nevada Athletic Commission appointee, in a November race to replace current Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, who is term-limited. Marchant leads a national coalition of candidates running on the falsehood that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by President Joe Biden. Marchant wants to eliminate voting by mail except for limited exceptions, such as military personnel. Michael Kagan, director of an immigration law clinic at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said there is no evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens. "Although isolated and random violations happen with voting, including with citizens, I am not aware of any evidence that undocumented immigrants are registering to vote or trying to vote systematically or in any numbers," Kagan said. DMV takes steps to only allow citizens to submit voter registration In 2018, Nevada voters approved a ballot initiative establishing a system to automatically register "eligible persons" to vote when they apply for or renew driver’s licenses at the DMV. "Eligible persons" must be U.S. citizens. Individuals also can decline to register. Nevada launched automatic voter registration in 2020, a system used by about two dozen states. Nevada DMV spokesperson James DeHaven said that prospective voters must first complete an application that requires them to disclose their citizenship status. Applicants sign the form, which says that any misstatement of facts is criminal, potentially a felony. Customers are not processed for voter registration if: They say they are not U.S. citizens; They say they were born outside the U.S.; They present immigration documents as proof of identity; They are applying for a driver authorization card, which is for noncitizens. 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 DMV staff members are required to explain the voter registration process in detail to each customer. The DMV does not register people to vote; it passes their registration information to election officials. And the DMV is not the only place people can fill out a voter registration form — they can also apply at county offices, through the mail or online. Marchant’s claim echoes statements by Trump allies after 2020 election Marchant did not respond to emails seeking evidence for his claim. But his statement echoes those Trump and his allies made in 2020, after the former president lost Nevada by about 34,000 votes. Trump tweeted in December 2020 that "thousands of noncitizens" had voted in Nevada. That same month, a few former Republican officials sued Secretary of State Cegavske, alleging that she had failed to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls. The case was filed by former Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who is now running for U.S. Senate; it was withdrawn a few months later. The lawsuit pointed to anecdotal evidence about a few noncitizens who either voted or were allegedly on the voter rolls over the past decade. Laxalt’s dropped lawsuit said an analysis showed "many noncitizens may have voted in the recently concluded 2020 election." That was a reference to an allegation in a separate lawsuit filed on behalf of electors for Trump. In the lawsuit filed on behalf of Trump electors, Republicans compared the DMV files with voter registration records and said they found about 4,000 matches correlating with noncitizens who voted illegally. That lawsuit included multiple allegations of voter fraud, but the courts said the allegations were not credible and dismissed the case. The state DMV told the Nevada Independent that the residents could have become citizens and not updated their driver’s license records. Cegavske investigated the allegation about 4,000 noncitizens voting in the 2020 election and released her findings in April 2021. She, too, found people on the voter rolls who registered with immigration paperwork; however, she said that thousands of immigrants become citizens each year. Cegavske concluded that without specific evidence to identify people who were foreign nationals when they voted, there was nothing further to investigate. PolitiFact has found anecdotal evidence of noncitizens on the voter rolls in multiple states, but the incidents are rare and would not tilt a statewide election’s outcome. Noncitizens who vote face high risks: They may be deported or incarcerated, or they may undermine their efforts to apply for naturalization. Our ruling Marchant said, "Here in Nevada, the DMV registers everybody (to vote) and so that means illegals. They don’t check." His comments imply that state officials routinely allow immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to register to vote. He provided no evidence for his claim. The DMV takes steps to allow only eligible citizens to fill out voter registration paperwork, which includes completing a form declaring citizenship status. Applicants who present immigration documents are not processed for voter registration. We rate this statement False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed research for this article. RELATED: JD Vance’s ad about ‘open border’ and immigrant voters is wrong RELATED: Factchecking Arizona’s Blake Masters’ claim of open borders and Democratic amnesty plans RELATED: How ‘stop the steal’ Republicans seeking office hope to restrict voting

"FEC charges (Beto O'Rourke's 2018 campaign) Illegal Campaign Contributions." An old claim about campaign contributions to Beto O'Rourke's 2018 U.S. Senate campaign has resurfaced in a popular Facebook post. The post, formatted as a timeline, makes allegations of illegal actions by gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke. It reads: "1995 Burglary arrest "1998 Driving while intoxicated (DWI) "2006 Eminent domain ethics violation complaint "2014 Illegal Twitter stock purchase "2018 FEC Charges illegal campaign contributions" 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.) We and other fact-checkers already looked into several of these claims. O'Rourke was arrested in 1990s for burglary and DWI, claims we previously rated True. In 2006, an attorney filed two ethics complaints against O’Rourke, then an El Paso City Council member, in a matter that involved eminent domain. But both complaints were dismissed by the city’s ethics commission. O’Rourke has never been charged with insider trading. But, as Snopes found, he reported himself to the House Ethics Committee after a news site reported that he’d purchased Twitter stock in its 2013 initial public offering, in violation of a then-new 2012 law designed to stop insider trading. This time, we wanted to take a closer look at the claim about his campaign contributions. In short, it’s misleading. FEC did review and flag O’Rourke’s campaign contributions in 2018, but the language in this post suggests he was charged with a crime. And that’s not what happened. PolitiFact Texas reached out to the current O'Rourke campaign. Chris Evans, communications director, wrote, "No, the FEC did not charge Beto or our senate campaign for illegal campaign contributions." Evans noted the FEC conducts reviews of finance reports and routinely requests additional details from campaigns. "In this case, the FEC asked a common question about a few donations from individuals with foreign addresses and contributions exceeding the federal limit," Evans said. "The donations that had foreign addresses attached to them were made by U.S. citizens who were living overseas at the time, which is permissible. Any contributions above the federal limit were refunded to the contributors as is a common practice in federal races." Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on November 2, 2022 in a video Video suggests GOP voters denied access in general election. By Gabrielle Settles • November 8, 2022 Christian Hilland, deputy press officer at the Federal Election Commission, said in an Aug. 24 email that the Commission has civil jurisdiction over federal campaign finance law and reviews issues for enforcement case by case. For example, if there is a violation, a campaign could receive a letter reminding it of compliance obligations or be ordered to pay a monetary penalty. "Since this agency has civil jurisdiction, it doesn’t include the word 'charge' or 'charges' as part of its enforcement vocabulary," Hilland wrote. In autumn 2018, when O'Rourke ran and lost against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claims that the FEC made "charges" circulated on social media. The Associated Press debunked this in October 2018 and reported the claim stemmed from a September 2018 FEC letter that lists several contributions from people abroad and contributions that exceed federal contribution limits. That letter requested more information about reported finances and pointed out issues so that the campaign can refund excessive contributions. O'Rourke's campaign had formally responded to this letter to say the contributions from abroad were from people with valid U.S. passports and to address the other points listed in the FEC's letter. That was not the only time O'Rourke's Senate campaign received requests for additional information about finances. The campaign received other Requests for Additional Information letters about other reporting periods, such as the October 2018 Quarterly Report and the 2018 30-Day Post-General Report, with an Oct. 18 to Nov. 26, 2018, reporting period. The campaign entered negotiations in the FEC's Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. It refunded $78,000 that had been contributed in excess of federal limits outside the FEC's prescribed 60-day time period. Separately, it also had not refunded an additional $200 reported from three other reporting periods. That $200 was ultimately refunded, according to a May 2020 letter from the campaign. The FEC described this program as "an informal means for resolving matters that come before the Commission." According to the documents, the O'Rourke Senate campaign said the reason it was so difficult to manage funds was because of "the unprecedented number of contributions" it was receiving. O'Rourke had received a record-breaking level of contributions. The campaign ultimately agreed to close its federal account, terminate its political committee status and reporting obligations, and pay a civil penalty of $5,900. The commission agreed to this settlement in May 2021. The FEC received a payment of $5,900 on June 3, 2021. The campaign filed for termination in July 2021 and the FEC notified it had accepted the filing in August 2021. PolitiFact fact-checked two other related claims mentioned in that Facebook post, including a claim pertaining to O'Rourke driving while intoxicated in 1998 (Mostly True) and a claim regarding eminent domain and ethics violations pertaining to construction (Half True). The latter claim pertains to O'Rourke's father-in-law's involvement in an El Paso redevelopment initiative while O'Rourke was a city council member. PolitiFact reported O'Rourke had abstained from key votes pertaining to eminent domain, and El Paso's city ethics commission had dismissed two ethics complaints alleging conflict of interest against O'Rourke. Our ruling A Facebook post presented several claims regarding O'Rourke, including that in 2018 "FEC charges Illegal Campaign Contributions." An FEC spokesperson said the commission has civil, not criminal, jurisdiction and does not "charge" campaigns or candidates in its enforcement. The O'Rourke campaign refunded most of the contributions at issue, albeit late, and refunded $200 while in negotiations for a settlement with the FEC. Beto for Texas paid a civil penalty of $5,900 in June 2021. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly Fals

“Naomi Biden says Joe Biden died four years ago. We’ve debunked claims that President Joe Biden has a body double, or that he’s dead. Neither are true. But some social media users are spreading what they’re suggesting is evidence to the contrary: video of his granddaughter saying he did die, and that his twin has been posing as the U.S. president. "My grandfather Joe Biden does have a twin and that twin is currently pretending to be Joe Biden in the White House," a woman says in a video shared on Instagram on Sept. 7. "So unfortunately, my grandfather Joe Biden passed away about four years ago but, you know, he had built up this really long political career and my family still wanted to have a bit of power in the U.S. government so we just replaced Joe with his twin brother, Beau." Text above the video says: "Naomi Biden says Joe Biden died 4 years ago." 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 Facebook.) 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 Biden’s eldest granddaughter is named Naomi Biden, but the person in the video isn’t her. The video was first shared on TikTok on June 11 by Kass Theaz, whose account is clearly labeled "satire." In other videos she pretends to be Biden’s granddaughter, though we didn’t see any in which she claimed to be Naomi Biden. RELATED VIDEO Joe Biden has seven grandchildren, none of whom are the person in the TikTok account. He also has four siblings: a sister, Valerie, and two brothers, James and Frank. James is seven years younger than the president, and Frank is 11 years younger. We rate claims that this is a video of Naomi Biden saying Joe Biden died and is being impersonated by his twin Pants on Fire

“Tim Ryan called police the new Jim Crow. J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for an open Senate seat in Ohio, said his Democratic opponent has disparaged the police. "Tim Ryan called police the new Jim Crow, which I think is insulting to Black Americans, but it’s also insulting to the police officers who are keeping communities of all colors safe," Vance said in a Sep. 4 interview with NewsNation, a national cable network. Vance’s comment appears to refer to remarks the Ohio congressman made in 2019, when running for president. But in that appearance at a town hall, Ryan did not single out or even mention the police in relation to Jim Crow — the system of laws that disempowered Black people in the South and kept the races segregated between the end of Reconstruction and the 1960s. Ryan instead referred to the entire criminal justice system and specifically mentioned sentencing disparities for people of color. The 2019 town hall was held at Paine College, a historically Black college in Georgia. The Daily Caller, a conservative publication, recently wrote about an exchange from that event and resurfaced video footage of Ryan’s comments from the event. At the 2019 event, Ryan said: "I believe that the current criminal justice system is racist. I believe in my heart that it’s the new Jim Crow, a new version of it. We see it all the time across the board, as I mentioned with crimes like marijuana where you’re gonna have a person of color … five to six times more likely to go to prison … than someone who’s white. And those prison sentences will be 20% longer than-than for a white person." Not long after the Daily Caller article was published, Vance retweeted it, saying, "Hey @TimRyan care to comment?" Ryan’s response was to tweet a 2017 video clip of Vance appearing on CNN, in which Vance said, "There are legitimate concerns that a lot of Black Americans have that they're not treated fairly by some members of the police." Advocates have long argued that the criminal justice system treats Americans differently, including by race and wealth. And Republicans have at times joined Democrats in seeking to ease racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Earlier this year, the House passed legislation that would eliminate the federal sentencing disparity between drug offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Those disparities have often been blamed for longer sentences for Black defendants than people of other races. More than two-thirds of House Republicans who were voting joined all Democrats in approving the measure. It's awaiting action in the Senate. Its title is the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law, or EQUAL, Act. In 2018, President Donald Trump signed the First Step Act, an overhaul of criminal justice law and procedure. It did not explicitly focus on race, but made changes expected to benefit offenders who are people of color, who make up a disproportionate share of those currently serving or who have served time in prison. In Ryan’s 2019 comments, his only mention of policing came when he touted "immersive training" for police. He introduced a related bill on that subject in 2019 that was aimed at improving community-police relations, officer safety, decision-making and de-escalation capabilities. Featured Fact-check Kanye West stated on October 16, 2022 in an interview Suggests fentanyl, not Derek Chauvin, killed George Floyd By Gabrielle Settles • October 18, 2022 Ryan won backing for the bill from both the NAACP and the Fraternal Order of Police, two groups that are often on opposite sides of policing issues. The bill attracted 13 co-sponsors, all Democrats, but did not advance in the chamber, and he did not reintroduce it in the current Congress. Ryan’s spokesperson Izzi Levy said Ryan continues to address the issue of systemic racism affecting many aspects of life, including "how we’re treated in the eyes of the law." Vance’s campaign strongly defended the candidate’s statement and choice of words. Luke Schroeder, Vance’s spokesperson, said the police are an integral part of definitions of the justice system used by the Department of Justice ("the criminal justice system consists of the police, courts, and corrections") and others. "Tim Ryan’s slandering of the entire criminal justice system is, by the DOJ’s own definition, a slandering of the police officers who are sworn to protect American communities," Schroeder said. "Ryan made no effort in his comments to differentiate his feelings about the police from his feelings about the system they are a part of." Vance’s campaign also pointed to a 2020 news release from Ryan’s congressional office that said there is "systemic racism in the American law enforcement and justice system." "The crux of the systemic racism argument made by Tim Ryan traces a clear line back to Jim Crow and slavery," Schroeder said. "When activists and politicians say there’s systemic racism, they mean that Jim Crow is alive and well today, and they mean that the police are carrying it out." Schroeder said that "when Tim Ryan, speaking at an HBCU in Georgia, called the ‘criminal justice system’ the ‘new Jim Crow,’ he knew exactly what he was doing." Our ruling Vance said, "Tim Ryan called police the new Jim Crow." Ryan said in a 2019 town hall that he believes today’s criminal justice system is "racist," and he compared it to Jim Crow laws. Ryan’s remarks addressed criminal laws, prosecutions and sentencing. But he did not mention police specifically in relation to Jim Crow laws. Vance’s comment presented a specific pairing — the police and Jim Crow — that Ryan did not make. We rate the statement Mostly False. Update, Sept. 9, 2022: Following publication, Vance’s campaign emailed PolitiFact with additional information. The story has been updated to reflect the campaign’s position. The rating is unchanged.

“The U.S. & Elon Musk reveal new hypersonic jet to help Ukraine. Elon Musk’s private rocket company, SpaceX, is already providing internet service to help Ukrainians battle Russian invaders. A recent blog post suggests Musk is going bigger — working with the United States government to bring "something which could play a key role in a confrontation with an aggressive Russia." "Finally: The U.S. & Elon Musk reveal new hypersonic jet to help Ukraine," the blog post’s headline 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 Facebook.) As The Washington Post reported, the United States Agency for International Development bought more than 1,330 high-speed internet enabling Starlink terminals from SpaceX to send to Ukraine, and SpaceX donated nearly 3,670 terminals and the internet service itself. The Ukrainians have sometimes used the service to link to drones for artillery strikes. But we found no credible reports about development or delivery of a hypersonic jet. Neither the Defense Department nor SpaceX responded to PolitiFact’s queries about the blog. Although the post says, "Now the time has come for a hypersonic aircraft," it offers no other details about the jet. 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 Searching Google for other reports about Musk, Ukraine and a hypersonic jet yielded two kinds of results — YouTube videos in the vein of this blog post, which make a big claim without evidence, and widespread media coverage of Starlink. RELATED VIDEO In a September article in the Kyiv Independent, reporter Daryna Antoniuk wrote that among the Ukrainian military, Musk is "often half-jokingly referred to as ‘Saint Elon.’" But that’s because of Starlink, which "keeps many Ukrainians, most importantly the military, online despite power outages and Russia’s on the country’s internet infrastructure." We rate this post False. RELATED: No credible reports indicate that Starlink was used in Russian ship attack

The National Institutes of Health “adds ivermectin to list of COVID approved treatments. The National Institutes of Health has recommended against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 except in clinical trials, but recent social media posts claim the federal agency has quietly OK’d the drug. "NIH adds ivermectin to list of COVID approved treatments," a Sept. 1 Instagram post from One America News said. In a Sept. 7 Facebook post, comedian Russell Brand said "yesterday, the National Institutes of Health added ivermectin to the list of COVID treatments." The 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 Facebook.) Brand’s post included an image of a page about "COVID-19 treatment guidelines" and "antiviral therapy" on the NIH’s website. "These sections summarize the data on ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, remdesivir, and other antiviral medications," the original page says. Among the medications listed is ivermectin. 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 "Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that is being evaluated to treat COVID-19," it reads. But its inclusion here isn’t new. We searched archived versions of this page and found one from as long ago as June 2021. The same language about ivermectin was on the page then, too. PolitiFact emailed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases press office about this. The statement the agency sent back confirmed there had been no change. RELATED VIDEO "The inclusion of ivermectin to the treatment guidelines is not new," the statement read. "Importantly, the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." This recommendation largely hinges on the results of recently published randomized controlled trials. "The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit," NIH wrote. These guidelines are updated regularly as new data becomes available, the institute said, but this is not such a case. We rate this post False.

The child tax credit passed under President Joe Biden “has helped 97% of the families with children who are living in poverty. As he hit the road on a campaign bus tour, Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., touted some legislative achievements of President Joe Biden’s administration. "This legislation has helped 97% of the families with children who are living in poverty," Warnock said Aug. 29 in Albany, Georgia. "I'm asking you to stand with me, Albany. Your vote is your voice, and your voice is your human dignity." It was initially unclear which legislation Warnock was referencing. His campaign later clarified it was the child tax credit that passed in March 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan, a coronavirus and economic relief measure. Warnock’s campaign provided a portion of his prepared text, which makes it clear he’s referring to the child tax credit. The tax credit change was designed to cut child poverty in half. Beneficiaries — who included families with very low incomes and those who are not required to file a tax return — received up to half the credit in monthly payments from July 2021 to December 2021. After that, the provision lapsed. But Warnock jumped the gun by citing the 97% success rate, which was a pre-implementation estimate. Post-implementation studies suggest that the success rate may have been around 75%, partly because of the difficulty of reaching eligible low-income families who may lack bank accounts or may not have known about the expanded credit. Warnock’s campaign told PolitiFact that he was using data from the Congressional Research Service, Congress’ nonpartisan research arm. The agency reported that, depending on income level and race, 83% to 99% percent of families living in or near poverty were estimated to be receiving the child tax credit, with the overall average being 96%. But there’s a catch: The report was issued in July 2021, at the very beginning of the expanded credit’s rollout, and its numbers are projections. Who was helped by the tax credit? Child poverty experts said that although the credits had reached millions of Americans, and very likely a large majority of those households that were eligible, it was misleading to substitute a projection of 97% for the actual disbursement rate. "In the longer term, after a year or two rollout, one might get to Warnock’s numbers," Timothy Smeeding, a public affairs and economics professor at the University of Wisconsin and former director of the Institute for Research on Poverty, told PolitiFact. "If you had a change in family circumstances or were not a regular taxpayer, you had to apply online and hope for the best. Many poorer families did not benefit," Smeeding said. 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 A report by the Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy in December 2021 concluded that "the expanded child tax credit has reached the overwhelming majority of children, but outreach to newly eligible families with low incomes should still continue." One analysis published in August 2022 found that one-quarter of adults with children reported that they had not received the payments, which would make the overall success rate 75% rather than 97%. The findings were from the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, and its Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey, a nationally representative survey of adults ages 18 to 64. The Urban Institute also conducted a smaller focus group with 20 low- and moderate-income families closer to the start of the program’s implementation. Although all participants in the focus group knew about the credit, one-fifth of the participants said they had not received a payment. Meanwhile, another study, by the Financial Health Network, found that 20% of respondents who had household incomes under $30,000 reported that they had not received the payment. That would mean a success rate of 80%. Obstacles to receiving payment Americans who had previously provided the IRS with their banking information faced the fewest obstacles in receiving payments, especially because pandemic stimulus checks had been routed through those accounts. But some Americans do not have bank accounts that the IRS can access, and that complicated the rollout. Those families "are likely to be among the lowest income families, disproportionately Black or Latino, and may have a range of family circumstances that pose challenges for outreach and enrollment, including disabilities, insecure housing, lack of internet or phone access, a language other than English spoken at home, and more," the Columbia University center wrote. The Urban Institute survey found that other common reasons cited by households not receiving payments were that they didn’t know about the credit; didn’t realize they qualified for it; voluntarily opted out, fearing tax consequences; and government glitches that kept the money from arriving. Our ruling Warnock said the child tax credit passed as part of the American Rescue Plan "has helped 97% of the families with children who are living in poverty." Warnock was citing pre-implementation estimates of how many families would benefit, but he framed the 97% success rate as something that had already been accomplished. Post-implementation analyses suggest that the success rate could be closer to 75% or 80%. That would have helped a lot of eligible families, but it’s short of the figure Warnock cited. We rate the statement Half Tru

There’s an unlimited supply of water being generated “deep within the Earth. Climate change has resulted in drier and hotter weather around the world. It has exacerbated a growing water crisis that experts say puts drought-prone areas at risk for longer and more severe water shortages. But a recent Instagram video implies there’s nothing to worry about. Earth is generating an unlimited supply of water, a man floating in a lake says in the video. "There’s water deep within the Earth, which is always coming up all the time, and is the combination of hydrogen and oxygen to create water, so that we have unlimited water," the man says as he bobs while wearing a personal floatation device. "We get fooled because we think that because it stops raining that we’re running out of water — but that’s actually the secondary water cycle … So it can have the illusion that we’re running out of water. But in reality water is coming out of the Earth 24/7, 365 (days a year), when hydrogen and oxygen are mixing together to come up through the water veins right up into the earth." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video oversimplifies the complexity of the Earth’s water supply and the reasons scientists warn about a water crisis in some parts of the globe. Hydrogen and oxygen do combine to make water. And there is water underground in the form of groundwater, but it’s not being spontaneously created, as the video claims. Greg Pierce, co-director of the Water Resources Group at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an adjunct assistant professor in its urban planning department, said the video’s overall message is wrong in its understanding of how water works. Groundwater occurs when the water from rain or melted snow and ice is absorbed into the soil and stored in small spaces between rocks and other sediment, according to an explainer from the Environmental Protection Agency. An aquifer can form underground, storing water that can then be pumped out for use. Sources of groundwater can be found between 10 feet underground to several thousands of feet underground. Pierce said there is plentiful, untapped water deep underground. But it’s not realistic to suggest that it’s simply there for the taking.. Not only would it be prohibitively expensive to drill to the deepest sources of groundwater in the Earth, but also the technology to do so isn’t available. "Going beyond even five hundred feet is costly. And if you go beyond a few thousand, which is where most of the water that’s ‘untapped’ is, we barely have the technology," he said. "There are also some concerns around destabilizing (the geology of an area) if you extract at depths that are too low." 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 Water is being constantly circulated on the planet from the ground to the atmosphere, and back again, as part of the hydrologic cycle. Pierce said the main concern regarding the global water supply stems from the fact that water is being extracted from aquifers faster than it can be replenished. Scientists call this "overdraft," and it impacts the amount of water available at a specific place at a specific time. It’s unknown where Earth’s water originated, but the widely accepted scientific theory is that the planet was struck by asteroids and comets containing ice billions of years ago. Some sources of groundwater have been built over millions of years, so it would take an equivalent amount of time before it is replenished, Pierce said. Overdraft has led to many aquifers becoming smaller. "We’re actually collapsing the storage of the aquifer basin where that water was held," Pierce said. "If you over-extract, it collapses and becomes narrower so you can’t store as much water." Norman Miller, a UC Berkeley adjunct professor in geography, said climate change has affected groundwater availability. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, the Earth has experienced rising temperatures. That creates more water vapor in the atmosphere. "The net result is dry regions become drier and wet regions become wetter, with more intense precipitation when it does precipitate," Miller said. Miller said there’s no "deep water emerging magically" from the Earth. Our ruling A video claims the world isn’t running out of water because an unlimited supply is being constantly generated underneath the Earth’s surface. While there is water underground, it’s not being spontaneously generated. It’s the result of rainfall and melted snow and ice seeping into soil and being stored in aquifers. Water is constantly being circulated across the Earth, going from the atmosphere to the surface and back again. Climate change and over-extracting from an aquifer have an impact on the availability of groundwater in a specific region at a specific time, but it doesn’t mean the world is running out of water. Drier areas are predicted to become drier as a result of less rainfall, while wet areas become wetter because of an increase in rain. We rate this Mostly Fals

President Joe Biden “employed actors to portray Marine guards” during a Sept. 1 speech Before President Joe Biden walked onto the platform to deliver a Sept. 1 speech on democracy, two U.S. Marines stepped onto the stage first. However, a viral video claimed they weren’t members of the military at all. Biden "employed actors to portray Marine guards" during the speech, according to the video posted Sept. 3 on Facebook. The video cited "a source in General Berger’s office." Gen. David H. Berger is the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. A narrator read aloud text on the screen that said, "the men in uniform … were not Marines at all. They were imposters." 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.) But there is no evidence to support the claim. The U.S. Marine Corps directed our request for comment to the White House, which said the claim was untrue. The text the video uses came from a Sept. 3 story in Real Raw News, a website known for concocting stories about politicians and the military. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 27, 2022 in an Instagram post Video shows “military robots ready for war.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 31, 2022 White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also mentioned the Marines during a Sept. 2 press briefing. "The presence of the Marines at the speech was intended to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the president has for these services — service members, to these ideals and the unique role our independent military plays in defending our democracy, no matter which party is in power," Jean-Pierre said. Our ruling A Facebook video said Biden "employed actors to portray Marine guards" during a Sept. 1 speech. There is no evidence that the Marines were actors. The White House said the claim is untrue. The claim originated from a website that has a history of publishing fabricated stories. We rate this Pants on Fir

“Walmart management is helping with rising prices with $500 grocery cards for $2. A recent Facebook post promises what seems like a pretty good deal: a $500 gift card for groceries that you can purchase for a mere $2. "Walmart management is helping with rising prices with $500 grocery cards for $2," the Sept. 5 post says. "Follow the instructions to participate." 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 Facebook.) Walmart did not immediately respond to our questions about the post. But there are a few clues on Facebook that this isn’t a credible offer that you should pursue. First, the link "to participate" was shared by a page called "Grocery Card Shipment." This page isn’t affiliated with Walmart, and it’s brand-new. In fact, it was created the same day the post was published. 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 Second, although several Facebook accounts had commented on the post, claiming to have received gift cards, their profiles were bare-bones. They had profile pictures that were all updated on the same date. A reverse image search for several of the profile pictures led us to Russian-language websites and social media profiles with names that are different from the names used on Facebook. Clicking on the link in the post raised more red flags. The website it takes you to shows Walmart’s logo. But the url began "echolala.info/blog" and isn’t affiliated with Walmart. It told users to answer questions about their gender, age, family members and history of winning gift cards before leading to another page that said: "You have been chosen to participate in this survey. It will only take a minute of your time and you can receive a fantastic prize: $500 Walmart Gift Card!" A grid of 12 boxes then appears, and users are directed to click on them. The first box we clicked was "empty" and we were instructed to try again. The second box revealed a supposed $500 Walmart gift card. We win! Then the catch: You have to enter your credit card information to pay $2 to ship the gift card to your home. We didn’t find anything on Walmart’s website to corroborate the claim in the Facebook post that the company is virtually giving away $500 in grocery gift cards. In fact, among the tips on Walmart’s website to avoid gift card fraud is one cautioning customers against buying, selling or checking a gift card balance "on online marketplaces outside of Walmart.com." We rate this post False.

Bank of America “announced a new mortgage home loan program for first-time homebuyers. But only blacks and Hispanics will be eligible. Bank of America unveiled a new loan program in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods to boost homeownership where it lags. Some of the news headlines made outlandish, unproven claims about the scope of the company’s program. "Whites and Asians need not apply," said an Aug. 31 story in Gateway Pundit, a conservative website. "Bank of America on Wednesday announced a new mortgage home loan program for first-time homebuyers. But only blacks and Hispanics will be eligible." Gateway Pundit also shared the claim in a Sept. 1 post on Instagram, and many commenters reacted with shock. "The bank should be sued for discrimination! This is blatant racism," one commenter replied. "Let the lawsuits commence," said another. The Instagram post — which was later edited — 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 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 We reached out to the Gateway Pundit to ask whether it had any information to back up the claim. The site did not return a request for comment. Bank of America said the claim is wrong. Borrowers do not have to be Black or Hispanic to qualify for the loans. Any first-time home buyer can apply, regardless of race. The bank’s Community Affordable Loan Solution offers mortgages with zero down payment and zero closing costs. The program is currently available in five markets, including specific Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles and Miami, according to a press release. "Individual eligibility is based on income and home location," the release said. The program aims to narrow racial gaps in home ownership. The National Association of Realtors reported that as of 2020, white Americans had a 72.1% homeownership rate; Asian Americans had a 61.7% rate; Hispanic Americans had a 51.1% rate; and Black Americans had a 43.4% rate. Our ruling The Gateway Pundit claimed that Bank of America "announced a new mortgage home loan program for first-time homebuyers. But only blacks and Hispanics will be eligible." The new program is available to all applicants, regardless of race. It is being introduced in Black and Hispanic communities to boost homeownership among those racial groups, who are less likely than white or Asian Americans to own their homes. But any first-time home buyer can apply, regardless of race. We rate this claim False

Says Mandela Barnes "supports stripping health care away from millions. In Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate race, Democrats are claiming Republican incumbent Ron Johnson’s positions would undermine Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans have had this to say about Democratic challenger Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes: "Mandela Barnes supports stripping health care away from millions and killing thousands of jobs across the country." That was in a statement attributed to Lizzie Litzow, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to get Republicans elected nationwide. It was part of a series of news releases from the committee that try to frame Barnes as too radical for Wisconsin. In this case, the frame provides a distorted picture of Barnes’ views. The first clue is that the news release itself cites Barnes’ support for health care reform that fits the Medicare for All framework. Indeed, "all" is right there in the name. So, does Barnes support "stripping health care away from millions." Let’s dig in. Barnes on Medicare for All When asked for backup to the claim, Litzow cited an Aug. 3, 2021, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article in which Barnes was quoted on his support for a Medicare for All plan. (Note: There have been multiple proposals that fall under the Medicare for All umbrella, the details of which vary, so for this fact check we’ll look at the idea generally based on the common thrust and approach). "As I’ve done throughout my career, I’ll fight to bring common sense solutions to the United States Senate like a Medicare for all plan that helps us realize the dream of health care for every American," Barnes said in the Journal Sentinel article. Litzow also pointed to a March 23, 2019, New York Times article that says at the heart of Medicare for All proposals is "a revolutionary idea" to abolish private health insurance. Elsewhere in its news release, the NRSC notes that private insurance is what would be impacted most by Medicare for All. But the group’s claim itself goes far beyond that, to raise fears that Barnes wants to strip way any health care from millions. In truth, the proposals — setting aside whether they are good policy or likely to pass — aim to make sure millions of people who currently lack insurance coverage can gain access to health care. Barnes campaign spokeswoman Maddy McDaniel told PolitiFact Wisconsin: "He supports building a path to Medicare for All and expanding health care for all Wisconsinites by strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding Medicaid, lowering the age of Medicare availability to 50, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, among other policies." What is Medicare for All? As noted, there have been various ideas and proposals that fall under the Medicare for All framework. The political figure most associated with it, of course, is U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. who made it a centerpiece of his 2016 and 2020 campaigns for president. He sought the nomination as a Democrat. 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 Broadly speaking, the programs mean everyone in the United States would receive care through a program administered by the federal government. While polls have shown some public support for provisions of the plans, they have not gotten serious traction — even in a Democratic-controlled Congress — and President Joe Biden is not a supporter. On May 12, 2022, Sanders and 14 senators, including Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., introduced the Medicare For All Act of 2022. That proposal, which has not gotten a vote, includes: Hospital and emergency services; prescriptions; primary and preventive services; mental health and substance abuse treatment; lab services; reproductive care, including abortion; pediatrics; dental and vision services; and home and long-term services. There would be no out-of-pocket expenses, insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments. According to the bill’s text, it would be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under Medicare for All, but people would be free to buy extra insurance. An executive summary of the measure cited a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found about 27 million workers and their dependents lost their employer-sponsored private health insurance at some point during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a 2019 PolitiFact National article, Medicare for All approaches would replace private insurance. "It would replace all other insurance, with limited exceptions, such as cosmetic surgery," the article said. "Employer-provided insurance, Medicaid and ultimately Medicare would all disappear." So, how does all of that square with the idea that Barnes’ position amounts to "stripping health care away from millions"? The U.S. health-care system would change dramatically — but, ultimately, more people would have access to health care, not less. And everyone would have it. According to a Sept. 14, 2021, U.S. Census Bureau report, some 8.6% of people in 2020 — or 28 million — did not have health insurance at any point during the year. "I do not understand the logic of this claim," Barbara Wolfe, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of economics, population health sciences, and public affairs, said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. "Medicare for all would extend coverage to millions. Depending on the details of the actual plan it would likely resemble coverage in other Western Democracies, where all citizens, and sometimes residents, are covered." Paul Ginsburg, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center and professor of health policy at the University of Sothern California, cited the example set by other countries. "As its name implies, MFA (Medicare For All) would cover all who are legally in the country," Ginsburg said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. "Single payer systems in other countries allow individuals to purchase private insurance if they pay extra. So the claim about stripping private insurance away is not true." Our ruling The NRSC claimed Barnes "supports stripping health care away from millions." Although Barnes has voiced support for Medicare for All — along with a menu of other health care reforms and changes — the claim vastly overstates what is involved, raising fears for those who hear it that they may wind up with no insurance. Such a proposal would dramatically change the nation’s health care system, which now centers on employer-provided coverage through private insurers, but it would ultimately provide health care for millions more, not millions fewer. We rate the claim False. 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' });

Gov. Ron DeSantis raised "taxes on the middle class by more than $1.5 billion while giving away $624 million to big corporations. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called President Joe Biden's plan to forgive student loan debt an economic burden on "the everyday American." DeSantis' Democratic rival in the governor's race, Charlie Crist, countered in a tweet that DeSantis raised taxes on Floridians in the middle class. DeSantis raised "taxes on the middle class by more than $1.5 billion while giving away $624 million to big corporations," Crist said in an Aug. 25 tweet. Ron DeSantis: Raises taxes on the middle class by more than $1.5 BILLION while giving away $624M to big corporationsJoe Biden: Forgives $10,000 of debtRon DeSantis: 😡😡😡— Charlie Crist (@CharlieCrist) August 25, 2022 DeSantis has criticized Democratic-led states like New York for imposing large tax burdens on their residents. So, we wondered whether Crist's portrayal of DeSantis' tax policy was accurate. PolitiFact found that DeSantis signed a bill to revise Florida's online sales tax in 2021 — but the tax isn't new and didn't target the middle class. Although corporations received a $624 million refund during DeSantis' tenure, there's more context to know than Crist provided. DeSantis revised Florida's online sales tax Crist is talking about a law DeSantis signed in 2021 that changed how the state collects sales taxes on online transactions. The law, SB 50, requires online marketplaces with no physical presence in Florida to collect and remit sales tax on items delivered to customers in the state. The state estimated it would generate about $1 billion a year. (The state's revenue department did not confirm the amount it collected when we asked about Crist's $1.5 billion claim.) Florida already had a 6% sales and use tax on goods. Before SB 50, customers were expected to contact the state's Department of Revenue and pay the tax owed on their purchases from remote sellers. But compliance was "notoriously low," a legislative staff analysis found. Florida changed the law after a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling eliminated the requirement that sellers have physical presence in a state to collect and remit taxes to that state. Experts told PolitiFact that SB 50 didn't create a new tax but shifted the responsibility to remit sales tax from consumers to the remote seller. "The ability to require a broader range of sellers to collect at point-of-sale increases collections, but it is an enforcement action, not a new tax," said Jared Walczak, a researcher at the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based research group. The Tax Foundation neither endorsed nor opposed the legislation in 2021 but noted that the revision held merit and that more than 40 states have enacted similar legislation "on a broad bipartisan basis." Featured Fact-check Rebekah Jones stated on October 26, 2022 in a post on Instagram Document shows Rebekah Jones “demonstrated” a violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act. By Sara Swann • November 1, 2022 Although Florida consumers are paying taxes on some purchases they previously hadn't paid them on, we found no evidence to support Crist's claim that the law targeted the middle class. "People of all income classes make online purchases," Walczak said. "Nothing about increasing enforcement of the already existing sales and use tax targets a particular income bracket." Florida doled out $624 million to big corporations Crist's campaign cited HB 7127 — legislation DeSantis signed in 2019 that extended a temporary corporate tax reduction set into motion by former Gov. Rick Scott in 2018. Scott signed the initial tax refund to offset changes brought about by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expanded the definition of corporate income while reducing federal corporate tax rates. That act resulted in more taxable income for Florida corporate income taxpayers and would have increased corporations' state tax liabilities. The 2018 bill lowered the corporate tax rate, which triggered an automatic refund for eligible corporate taxpayers. DeSantis allowed the downward adjustment of corporate tax rates to continue for another two years. In spring 2020, he snubbed calls from Democratic lawmakers to cancel the tax refund. A Florida Department of Revenue spokesperson told PolitiFact it refunded nearly $624 million to the state's corporate taxpayers this year. The refunds benefited more than 21,000 corporate taxpayers, the spokesperson said. Our ruling Crist said DeSantis raised "taxes on the middle class by more than $1.5 billion" and gave $624 million to "big corporations." That's misleading. Although DeSantis signed legislation to revise Florida's online sale tax — which the state estimated would generate around $1 billion annually — the law neither established a new tax nor targeted only the middle class. Crist had more of a point when considering the amount of money Florida refunded to large corporations. The Florida Department of Revenue told PolitiFact it refunded nearly $624 million to the state's corporate taxpayers this year. In 2019, DeSantis signed legislation that extended a provision — signed by former Gov. Rick Scott — that temporarily reduced corporate income tax rates. The refunds benefited more than 20,000 corporate taxpayers, according to the state Department of Revenue. Crist's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly Fals

“60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat ‘won.’ Critics of ranked choice voting are using Democrat Mary Peltola’s win of Alaska’s House seat to distort the new method of casting votes. Peltola defeated two Republicans: Sarah Palin and Nick Begich III. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., tweeted Aug. 31, the day Peltola was named the winner, "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat ‘won.’" Cotton is free to dislike ranked choice voting — he isn’t the only critic. Supporters argue that ranked-choice voting eliminates extremist candidates; critics say it hasn’t lived up to its ideals. But Cotton’s comments misinterpret how ranked choice voting works. It would be more precise to say that in the first round, about 60% voted for one of two Republicans. In the first round, Republican Sarah Palin captured 31% of votes, and Republican Nick Begich III had 28%. Voting then went to a second round because no candidate received more than 50% of the vote in the first round. "Peltola won fair and square by ranked choice voting rules," said University of Alaska political scientist Jerry McBeath. Alaska is using ranked choice voting to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Rep. Don Young. The election that Peltola won was a special election to serve out the remainder of Young’s term, which is only a few months. Another election in November between the same candidates will determine who holds the seat for a full two-year term. Starting this year, ranked choice voting will also be used in other Alaska elections, including for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Lisa Murkowski. We asked Cotton’s spokesperson for his evidence that the ranked choice system disenfranchised voters and she pointed to a 2020 op-ed by Cotton opposing the idea of Arkansas adopting ranked choice voting. Ultimately, a question about whether to adopt ranked choice voting didn’t make it to the ballot in Cotton’s home state of Arkansas. How the Democrat won with ranked choice voting in Alaska In a traditional election, either a primary or a general election, voters choose one candidate. But under ranked choice voting, the voters rank candidates in descending order of preference. Communities of varying political stripes and geographic sizes, from cities in Utah to New York City, have used ranked choice voting. Alaska is the second state to implement it on a wide scale after Maine. Alaska voters approved ranked choice voting through a 2020 referendum. Alaska’s model established an all-party primary in which four candidates would advance to a general election that would use ranked choice voting. In the June primary, the top vote-getters were Palin, Begich, Al Gross and Peltola. Gross then dropped out. After the first round for the Aug. 16 election, Peltola was in first place with about 40% of the vote. Begich was eliminated, and voting went to a second round. Enough voters listed Peltola as either their first or second choice to ultimately give her about 51.47% of the vote, according to results that will be certified Sept. 2. Therefore, Cotton’s comment that "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican" only applied to the first round of voting — which was not the final round — when that percentage voted for one of two Republicans. If Alaska instead had held a traditional primary and Palin won more votes in a Republican primary than Begich (as she did in the first round of ranked choice voting), the results of Aug. 16 election suggest that Peltola would have won the general election faceoff even without ranked choice voting. Why many Begich voters chose Peltola on the second round Cotton said that "ballot exhaustion" occurred — a reference to when voters fail to rank enough candidates. There were about 11,000 exhausted ballots, or about 21% of the ballots on the second round. It’s possible some voters didn’t understand that they could rank more than one candidate, even though officials and voter outreach groups publicized how to fill out the ballot. The Alaska Elections Division scheduled mock elections and posted concept ballots online. One group held an event at which audience members could rank drag queen performances. But voters aren’t forced to rank more than one candidate. 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 Alaskans for Better Elections, a group that advocated for ranked choice voting, conducted exit surveys of voters and found that a majority found ranked choice voting simple. For those who ranked only one candidate, 75% said "that was the only candidate I liked." Palin said she ranked no candidates but herself. "I do not believe in this system. It should not be embraced by enthusiastic participation when we know it’s not right," she said. Although some people may be surprised that more of the votes for Begich didn’t transfer to Palin, that ignores the context of Palin as a polarizing figure, said David Kimball, a University of Missouri political scientist. Palin and Begich spent much of the campaign attacking each other, so it’s unsurprising that some of Begich’s supporters didn’t rank Palin second. McBeath, the University of Alaska political scientist, said Alaskans voted against Palin for various reasons, including her not finishing her term as governor, her leaving the state after achieving national celebrity or because they found her too extreme or her views "too Trumpist." "Some supported Peltola because she projected herself as able to speak for all Alaskans and had done that in the state legislature, others because she was an Alaska native, others because her stances were moderate," he said. Cotton tweeted that Peltola "won" — a word he put in quote marks, which could mean he deemed her victory invalid. But ranked choice voting is a legal way to conduct elections, and it’s the law in Alaska. "Alaska has settled on a very legitimate, perfectly safe and sane system to run their elections," said Dan Shea, a government professor at Colby College. The idea behind ranked choice voting is to give voters preferences, Shea said. He compared it to going to a food buffet. "You don't head back to the table with just one item, but instead lots of what you like. King crabs, to be sure! But then a few other choices that are just OK make the plate, too. The french fries. The items you really don't like -— the spinach salad — never touch your plate. For many of the Begich voters, Palin never made the plate. Spinach salad. Pretty simple." Cotton also tweeted that the ranked choice voting system was a "scam to rig elections." We rated a similar claim Pants on Fire. Cotton waited to reach that conclusion until the Democrat won. "It is dangerous for democracy when politicians claim a rigged election when they happen to lose," Kimball said. Peltola, Palin and Begich will face each other again in November. Republicans have a good shot at winning the full, two-year term if they do choose to "rank the red" then, said Rob Richie, president of FairVote, a Maryland-based nonprofit group that supports ranked choice voting. Our ruling Cotton tweeted "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat ‘won.’" Peltola achieved a legitimate win in a state in which the electorate approved ranked choice voting as the law. Peltola’s path to victory was aided by the two Republicans having attacked each other, and by Palin having a lot of critics. Cotton arrived at the 60% figure by adding up the total votes the two Republicans, Palin and Begich, won in the all-candidate first round. There were about 11,000 voters who didn’t rank a second choice on their ballot, referred to as ballot exhaustion. But voters have that right and might have done so because they didn’t like a second candidate. That voters could rank their choices doesn’t mean they were disenfranchised – a term that suggests citizens were blocked from voting. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Why Trump is wrong to call Alaska’s ranked choice voting 'rigged' RELATED: Democracy experts support Alaska’s move to ranked-choice voting. Here’s why RELATED: All of our fact-checks about electio

Says “Tim Michels doesn’t think gay people should be out in public. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and his Republican challenger in November’s gubernatorial election don’t see eye to eye on a critical issue for LGBTQ Wisconsinites: Same-sex marriage. Evers, who was the first governor to fly the Pride flag over the Capitol in 2019, said in his most recent comment on the issue that he wanted to see federal legislation to protect gay marriage. (The U.S. Supreme Court struck down all bans on it in 2015, but some worry that could change in a future ruling.) His opponent, construction executive Tim Michels, said in a June 15, 2022, interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s the same opinion he held in 2004 when he ran for one of Wisconsin’s Senate seats. Then, a majority of the American public agreed with him. Today, that viewpoint is in the minority, with 71% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage according to a June 1, 2022, Gallup poll — a new high. As the general election nears, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin seized on a related comment from Michels during his Senate run, which he made in an Oct. 16, 2004, debate against then-incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold. When asked how the candidates would protect the rights of LGBTQ Wisconsinites, Michels responded that every American "deserves to be treated as an American, but I think when you bring it out of your house, and onto the public street, that's where I differ. I believe in family values." He went on to say that he would support a constitutional amendment that would specify marriage as being between a man and a woman. "Tim Michels doesn’t think gay people should be out in public," an Aug. 8, 2022, news release from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin read, outlining what it described as "radical" positions Michels and his primary challenger, former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, held over their careers. Michels’ position on same-sex marriage is crystal clear. But the Democratic Party’s statement is a major stretch. Let’s take a look. Michels backed off ‘onto the public street’ comment after debate When asked for evidence of the party’s claim, a spokesperson provided a link to the debate and news coverage of both that event and Michels’ most recent reiteration of his stance on same-sex marriage. 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 debate was the only specific instance the party was referring to when it made its claim, the spokesperson said. But that portion of Michels’ debate statement was rather ambiguous — prompting Feingold to say he was "confused" by the remark and did not understand what his opponent was trying to say, according to an Oct. 17, 2004, story by The Associated Press. That article also includes a key clarification that the Democrats ignored: that Michels "later clarified that he did not mean (LGBTQ people) should not bring their sexuality into public, but people shouldn’t have ‘gay values’ imposed upon them." It’s certainly not a statement friendly to the LGBTQ community. But Michels explicitly said he didn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to be out in public — which directly refutes what the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is now claiming, 18 years later, that he said. A spokesperson for Michels’ campaign said the attention to the old quote is "the latest sad example" of Democrats "grasping at straws" to attack their opponent. She pointed to a June 28, 2022, radio interview Michels did with WISN radio host Dave Michaels in which he said the issue of gay marriage was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court seven years ago and that it’s not a priority given other issues he’d want to focus on as governor. Still, Michels has made his personal viewpoint on these issues clear. He opposes same-sex marriage and has slammed his rivals for supporting it, saying in a July 22, 2022, campaign event in Menomonee Falls, "the Democratic Party now is all about LGBTQ IQ, and it’s all about drag shows for third-graders." He didn’t answer a June question from a reporter about whether he would take steps as governor to limit gay people’s rights, saying, "As a businessman, what I do is I look at what’s in the legislation and it’s all about the details. So, I am very hesitant to do hypotheticals on a broadly stated question like that." But the claim that he doesn’t believe gay people should be able to own their identity in public — especially when its one reference comes from a decade plus-ago debate — is an exaggeration. Our ruling A news release from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that "Tim Michels doesn’t think gay people should be out in public." Michels has made clear his opposition to a critical issue for the LGBTQ community and has criticized Democrats for focusing on such issues. But the claim takes his 2004 comment to an extreme and leaves out the clarification he made afterward. A statement is Mostly False if it 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' });

Three churches were targeted during arson attacks over the summer “because they protect unborn babies and women in need. A Catholic lobbying group’s ad attacking President Joe Biden, himself a Catholic, claims that churches are being targeted in arson attacks "because they protect unborn babies." The anti-abortion TV spot begins with black-and-white images of unidentified structures on fire or in ruins. Interspersed are audio clips from the ad’s narrator, who refers to church burnings in the 1960s, and from John F. Kennedy, America’s first Catholic president, pledging to arrest those responsible. Then the narrator shifts to the present tense, claiming: "Now, churches are being burned again because they protect unborn babies and women in need." Two headlines in the ad allude to two July church fires in Bethesda, Maryland. Another headline refers to a June fire at a Catholic church that isn’t identified by name in the ad. The ad closes by suggesting that Biden has shown indifference to the church damage. In the two July arsons, investigators found no indication that abortion was a motive of the teen who was arrested in connection with setting the fires. In the June arson, which occurred in Reston, Virginia, based on the date and other information in the headline, police initially connected the fire to the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which federally protected access to abortion. But they have made no arrests and later said they don’t know the motivation for the crime. Related suspected arsons at two Bethesda churches CatholicVote, a nonprofit based in Carmel, Indiana, describes itself as a lobbying organization for "faith, family and freedom." The group said it launched the ad because of inaction by the Justice Department to attacks that damaged Catholic churches and anti-abortion organizations around the country after the draft was leaked on May 2 of the Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe. We confirmed through news photographs that five of the eight black-and-white images shown in the ad are from suspected arsons in 1962 at Black churches in Georgia. The other images are similar, but we couldn’t determine their origin. Two of the churches pictured had been centers for voter registration efforts during that period of major racial strife. The ad’s two July headlines were pulled from news stories from The Washington Post and a Washington, D.C., Fox TV affiliate about suspected arson at two churches and vandalism outside a third church. All three incidents occurred in Bethesda, several miles north of Washington, on July 9 and July 10. One fire happened at a Catholic church, St. Jane Frances de Chantal Parish, and one at North Bethesda United Methodist Church. At the Catholic church, several pews were damaged, and at the Methodist church, the fellowship hall, kitchen and hallway were damaged, the Post reported. The damage was estimated at $50,000 at the Catholic church and $1,000 at the Methodist church, Fox reported. Also, headstones in the cemetery of a Baptist church were vandalized. Authorities believed the three incidents were related, according to the Post. Neither news story referred to abortion as a possible motive for the suspected arsons. 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 A juvenile was arrested in connection with the two fires about a week later, according to news reports quoting police and fire officials. The officials did not cite any possible motive and said the case was being handled in juvenile court. Juvenile court proceedings typically are confidential. Pete Piringer, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, told PolitiFact on Sept. 1, "There was no indication as to a motive, or that it was related to abortion." The Rev. Samuel Giese, pastor of the Catholic church, said at Mass on July 10 that the church was set on fire and vandalized because of the Catholic faith’s stance against abortion. But Giese later told PolitiFact that his comments at the time were based on assumptions, partly because pro-abortion rights demonstrations had been staged outside his church. He said fire investigators later told him that "they did not believe that the pro-life stance of the church was the primary motivation" of the teen who was arrested. The Rev. Kara Scroggins, pastor of the Methodist Church, told PolitiFact there was no indication that the motive for the arson at her church was related to abortion, and that she was told the suspect is severely mentally ill. She noted that the United Methodist Church supports abortion being a legal option and that her sermon after Roe v. Wade was overturned was "decidedly ‘pro-choice.’" Earlier Catholic church fire The third headline in the ad came from a Fox News story about a June 26 fire at St. John Neumann Catholic Community church in Reston, about 20 miles northwest of Washington. Police reportedly launched an arson investigation after the church was targeted with fire and graffiti two days after the Roe reversal, the Fox News story said. The graffiti included pictures of female genitalia spray-painted on the church’s exterior, along with messages including: "This won’t stop" and "Separation of Church + State." "The remarks spray painted were related to the recent Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling," the Fairfax County Police Department said at the time. The fire was limited to smoldering mulch outside the building, police said. Arlington Diocese Bishop Michael Burbidge said in a statement at the time that the painted messages show "the vandalism was a direct result of our unwavering support for unborn children and their mothers." On its website, St. John Neumann describes its "pro-life ministry," whose activities include protests at a local abortion clinic. Fairfax County police Sgt. Lance Hamilton told PolitiFact on Sept. 1 that police are seeking the public’s help on the case. No arrests have been made, and while the graffiti is important evidence, the motive for the crime is unknown, he said. Our ruling CatholicVote claimed in an ad that churches are being burned "because they protect unborn babies and women in need." The ad cited three 2022 arsons and included images of churches that had been leveled by racially motivated arson in 1962. In two of the 2022 fires, authorities found no evidence that abortion was the motive of the juvenile who was the only person arrested in the crimes. Police initially connected the third fire to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade two days earlier but later told PolitiFact they did not know the motive. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. PolitiFact staff researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this article. Update, Sept. 8, 2022: This story has been updated to include a response from Scroggins received after publication. The rating remains unchange

Joe Biden and Raphael Warnock "are spending $1.5 billion on ‘urban forestry’ and raising taxes on those making under $200k to pay for it. In Georgia’s closely watched Senate race, Herschel Walker, the Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, keeps circling back to a subject rarely discussed in political campaigns: trees. It began at Walker’s Aug. 21 campaign appearance, when he said of Democrats, "They continue to try to fool you that they are helping you out, but they’re not. Because a lot of money, it’s going to trees. Don’t we have enough trees around here?" Herschel Walker on the federal climate change bill: “They continue to try to fool you that they are helping you out. But they’re not. Because a lot of money it’s going to trees. Don’t we have enough trees around here?” #gapol #gasen https://t.co/1HpulYTJl4— Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) August 22, 2022 The following day, Walker doubled down, saying in a tweet, "Yes, you heard me right … Joe Biden and @ReverendWarnock are spending $1.5 billion on ‘urban forestry’ and raising taxes on those making under $200k to pay for it. Yes, I have a problem with that." Yes, you heard me right…Joe Biden and @ReverendWarnock are spending $1.5 billion on “urban forestry” and raising taxes on those making under $200k to pay for it. Yes, I have a problem with that.— Herschel Walker (@HerschelWalker) August 22, 2022 Walker was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act recently signed by President Joe Biden. He accurately represented the amount of money allocated to support urban tree cover in the Inflation Reduction Act. But his assertion that the effort is being funded by "raising taxes on those making under" $200,000 is misleading, since the analysis that drew that conclusion didn’t take into account the savings to Americans from other parts of the bill. When PolitiFact contacted him for this article, Walker said through his campaign, "Our inner cities need less crime, not more trees." Shifting sentiment about trees It wasn’t long ago when a large majority of Republicans indicated they supported tree-planting efforts. A 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 88% of Republicans supported planting about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions, which scientists say would help arrest climate change. Also in 2020, President Donald Trump noted in his State of the Union address that he had worked to make sure the U.S. joined the World Economic Forum’s One Trillion Trees planting initiative. And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., co-sponsored the One Trillion Trees Act along with 33 other House Republicans. (It did not advance.) More recently, though, Republicans and GOP-aligned groups have used trees as a rhetorical punching bag. In August, the group Citizens Against Government Waste ran a Facebook ad that ridiculed spending in the Inflation Reduction Act on such "wasteful" efforts as "‘tree equity,’ ‘clean’ garbage trucks and studying cow farts." How much will be spent on trees under the new law? 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, said Matt Spitsen, program development manager for the Arbor Day Foundation, which promotes tree planting. Where does funding for the law come from? Walker said the legislation would raise "taxes on those making under $200k." But the tax provisions in the measure are aimed at wealthy money managers and big companies. One of the law’s two major tax elements would significantly scale back a tax-code provision known as "carried interest," which allows money managers to pay taxes on much of their income at capital-gains rates, which are lower than the regular rates for personal income. The other provision would require companies reporting at least $1 billion in profits to pay at least 15% in corporate income taxes, which many currently do not do. An analysis by the congressional bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found the law would raise taxes, on average, in every income bracket. Overall, the federal tax burden for all Americans would rise by an average of 1.4% in 2023, and by less in future years. For those earning between $30,000 and $100,000, the increase would be less than 1% in 2023. But there’s an important caveat: The joint committee analysis looked only at the tax side of the bill, not at spending provisions that could offset those tax increases for most families. The latter includes tax credits for people who buy electric vehicles and implement energy-efficiency improvements; multiyear subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and a drug-negotiation provision for Medicare. Featured Fact-check America First Legal stated on November 1, 2022 in an ad “Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to non-white citizens first." By Tom Kertscher • November 5, 2022 The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded that the $64 billion in health insurance subsidies alone "would be more than enough" to erase the tax increases for people earning less than $400,000 under the Joint Commission on Taxation’s analysis. What will the allocation for trees be spent on? The funding for trees is to be used "for tree planting and related activities, with a priority for projects that benefit underserved populations and areas," according to the bill. Before the bill’s passage, the U.S. Forest Service program’s budget was spent largely on placing staff in every state to support local urban foresters. The new, expanded budget will allow the program to award grants to local nonprofits seeking to improve tree cover in their geographic areas, Spitsen said. The idea is to "help cities plant more trees in the places where they're needed most," said Jad Daley, president and CEO of the advocacy group American Forests. The national program’s focus on racial and economic justice seeks to direct the bill’s funding to neighborhoods that are low-income and relatively treeless. "Across the nation, on average, the lowest-income neighborhoods in America have 41% less tree cover than the wealthiest neighborhoods," Daley said. And neighborhoods where a majority of residents are people of color have 33% less tree cover on average, he said. "Essentially, shade and cooling is distributed according to race and income," he said. A jet comes in for approach over downtown Phoenix as temperatures exceed 100 degrees in the morning hours. Phoenix officials are planting thousands of trees to lower temperatures. (AP) Why is the money being allocated? Supporters cite several benefits from expanding tree cover. One major benefit is reducing mortality from heat. Between 1999 and 2010, 8,081 people died in the United States from heat-related deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About three-quarters of those deaths were primarily because of heat, and in the rest, heat was a contributing factor. That’s about five times the number of deaths from hurricanes over the same period, even counting the unusually high death toll from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And it was about 12 times the number of deaths from tornadoes over the same period. More recent data from a University of Pennsylvania study found even higher numbers for heat-related deaths: an estimated 13,000 to 20,000 between 2008 and 2017. "The allocation of funds to tree planting in cities can have an immense impact on heat risk," said Brian Stone Jr., an urban environmental planning and design professor at Georgia Institute of Technology. Stone said his research found that in combination with other strategies, planting trees in Atlanta "can reduce heat-wave mortality by more than 20%." Trees also ease carbon levels in the atmosphere. Trees, like all plants, store and immobilize carbon dioxide, which is a key driver of climate change. Daley said it’s estimated that 130 million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide are being stored in trees and forests. "So it's a really big slice of the natural climate solution," he said. Tree-planting is "a meaningful contribution to actually pull carbon dioxide out of the air." Finally, trees help save money on cooling. Research published by the U.S. Forest Service suggests that, on average, urban trees and forests help decrease residential electricity use by 7.2% annually. That produces savings in utility costs and also reduces emissions from power generation. Our ruling Walker said, Biden and Warnock "are spending $1.5 billion on ‘urban forestry’ and raising taxes on those making under $200k to pay for it." Walker is correct about the amount being spent on efforts to bolster urban tree cover, but he exaggerated when he said the bill will "raise taxes" on middle- and lower-income Americans. Analyses that reached that conclusion looked only at the tax provisions in the bill. The spending provisions could offset those increases, or surpass them, by saving Americans money on green improvements, Affordable Care Act premiums and prescription drug costs. We rate his statement Half Tru

“Sixty-four members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — have broken a law to stop insider stock trading, yet Washington refuses to do anything about it. North Carolina Democrat Cheri Beasley said in a recent ad that if she’s elected to the U.S. Senate, she wants to ban members of Congress from trading stocks. "I’ll admit, I’ve never worked in Washington," Beasley said in the ad. "But to me, there's a lot going on there that makes no sense. Like get this: 64 members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — have broken a law to stop insider stock trading, yet Washington refuses to do anything about it." Beasley, a former North Carolina Supreme Court chief justice, is running for the Senate seat that will soon be vacated by Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr. She faces Republican U.S. Rep. Ted Budd in what could be one of the closest Senate races in the nation. Beasley’s claim "may very technically be true, but it hides a lot of important nuance and distinctions," said Robert Walker, a former chief counsel for the Senate and House ethics committees. Most of the congressional members listed in the article Beasley’s ad cites — including U.S. Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., — aren’t accused of insider trading. But they’re alleged to have failed to report their stock transactions by a legally mandated deadline. For that, they face fees, not criminal charges. And the soft penalties are one reason Beasley wants to change law, her campaign says. "Cheri is the only candidate in this race who will stand up to both parties and special interests to put North Carolina first, which is why she supports a ban on stock trading by Members of Congress — because our elected officials should focus on serving the people, not enriching themselves," said Dory MacMillan, a Beasley campaign spokesperson. About the law Beasley’s campaign ad cites an article by Business Insider, which is tracking members of Congress who've failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012. Business Insider said it identified 71 members of Congress who didn’t fully comply with the law. That law, known as the STOCK Act, requires members of Congress and others to report their stock transactions within 45 days of the trade, a much stricter deadline than the previous requirement of once a year. Lawmakers face fees if they’re late in filing their periodic transaction reports. The fees start at $200 and escalate depending on how late the reports are filed and how many trades are being disclosed. Lawmakers who face egregious violations or are suspected of trading off insider knowledge are subject to investigation by the House or Senate ethics committees, which govern the reporting. The disclosure reports are public and people can detect potential reporting violations by comparing the listed trade and disclosure dates. However, penalties levied by the ethics committees are not public. So voters, in many cases, are left in the dark about how violations are handled. It’s common for media outlets to report on STOCK Act violations and have no information about legal repercussions for the lawmaker. The fee structure is considered by many to be ineffective. Donald Sherman, a former counsel for the House Ethics Committee, told a congressional committee this year that the fees aren’t high enough to encourage compliance. Still, it’s inaccurate for Beasley to say Washington refuses to do anything. Although the late fees are private, some lawmakers have reported paying them. And a bipartisan push for reforming trade disclosure is credited with prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to shift her position in favor of tighter enforcement. About the alleged violations Beasley’s ad mentions what the STOCK Act is intended to do: prevent lawmakers from using nonpublic information to get an unfair advantage on the stock market. But it leaves out that most lawmakers listed in the Business Insider article aren’t accused of insider trading — but of reporting their trades late. Without that context, the ad implies a level of criminality that doesn’t typically accompany a STOCK Act violation. Some lawmakers featured in the Business Insider article were months late disclosing transactions worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Some are repeat offenders. Very few have been under intense scrutiny. One of them is U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J. Business Insider reported that Malinowski didn’t disclose dozens of stock trades from 2020 and 2021 until after being questioned by the news outlet, and is now being investigated by the House ethics committee. The Office of Congressional Ethics, a nonpartisan congressional entity charged with investigating misconduct, found that Malinowski hadn’t directed his securities firm to make trades. And, in a statement to PolitiFact, Malinowski’s office said the congressman had already "gone above and beyond the requirements of the law by placing his life’s savings into a qualified blind trust" and supports the proposed ban on member stock trading. 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 Business Insider and the nonprofit news website Sludge, meanwhile, reported that Manning was late in filing several dozen stock trades that, combined, could be worth up to $1.25 million. In a statement to PolitiFact, Manning’s office said the congresswoman’s financial investments are handled by third-party investment managers "with no input or direction by her or her husband. "When (Manning) discovered an error had been made by those professionals in the transmission of information to the law firm who handles the disclosure statements, she immediately filed an amended report to disclose that information. Since rectifying that error, her disclosures have been 100% compliant and any accusations to the contrary are completely false." Others on the Business Insider list were days or weeks late reporting on smaller transactions, sometimes made by a spouse or child dependent. U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., was only a couple of days late disclosing purchases of Target Corp. and Tesla Inc. stock earlier this year. A Whitehouse spokesperson told PolitiFact that Whitehouse’s transactions are made by a manager and that the report was late "due to a staff transition in the office." Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., was a few days late in disclosing stock trades made by his wife. Perlmutter’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. "Did they break the law? Well, perhaps technically, yes," said Walker, who is now a lawyer at the Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein LLP. "But I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to use that phrase. It may be more appropriate for those who seem to be kind of scofflaws, who do it intentionally or repeatedly or who seem to be flouting it egregiously." Harvey Pitt, the former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the stock market, said the law is clear: "If there’s a deadline, you’re required to meet it. Period," said Pitt, who is now chief executive of compliance consultancy Kalorama Partners LLC. But there are more serious offenses. "When I see a lot of people in Congress filing late, I see that as sloppy but not necessarily a hanging offense," Pitt said. Kedric Payne is a vice president and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign ethics watchdog group, and former deputy chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics. Payne said voters — not lawmakers — are often most affected by late disclosures. He compared the cases of Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Burr in 2020 faced a U.S. Justice Department investigation, which has since been closed, after he reported selling up to $1.7 million in stocks just before markets cratered ahead of the COVID-19 outbreak. Burr for weeks faced intense criticism and calls to resign. Burr has denied wrongdoing and said he relied solely on public information. Paul largely avoided backlash after his wife bought stock in a company that makes an antiviral drug used to treat COVID-19 because he disclosed the trades so late. The purchase, made on Feb. 26, 2020, wasn’t disclosed until August 2021. In a statement to PolitiFact, a Paul spokesperson blamed the late report on a transmission error and rejected the notion he benefited from the tardiness of his report. Paul "completed the reporting form for an investment made by his wife using her own earnings, an investment which she has lost money on," Kelsey Cooper, a Paul spokesperson, said. "This was done in the appropriate reporting time window. In the process of preparing to file his annual financial disclosure for last year, he learned that the form was not transmitted and promptly alerted the filing office and requested their guidance. Dr. Paul attended no hearings public, private, or classified on COVID prior to his wife buying a stock that subsequently lost money." Paul’s move, intentionally or unintentionally, deprived the public of key information during a time it was most entitled to it. "Voters have a right to know that their elected officials are prioritizing the public interest and not their own personal financial interest," Payne said. "It doesn't matter that someone may look at this as simply a reporting issue. It is a transparency issue, and (filing late) chips away at the public's trust." Our ruling Beasley said 64 members of Congress "have broken a law intended to stop insider stock trading, yet Washington refuses to do anything about it." More than 70 members of Congress have filed financial disclosures late, apparently violating the STOCK Act. However, Beasley’s ad glosses over the fact that most of those lawmakers are accused of filing late reports — not insider trading — and that they are subject to fees if they violate the law. Her statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half Tru

"Water-fueled car can travel from LA to NY on 22 gallons. An Instagram post showing dated news footage of late inventor Stanley Meyer talking about his "water fuel cell" is recirculating a decades-old claim by Meyer that water could be converted into fuel to power automobile engines. Beyond that, the post — via superimposed text stretched across the video — echoes a statement Meyer made during the news interview in which he claimed 22 gallons of water could fuel a dune buggy enough to drive from Los Angeles to New York. "Water has always been considered a precious commodity, but Stan Meyers’ invention may make it even more valuable. He has developed what he calls a water fuel cell," the interviewer says in the segment. "It has taken the place of his old gas tank. The water fuel cell breaks down water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is used to run his dune buggy." Not so fast, say energy wonks and physicists. This post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook, which owns Instagram, to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Iterations of this claim have been debunked numerous times by fact-checkers (such as here and here) and debunked across the board. "Water cannot be burned as hydrocarbon fuels (petrol, ethanol, natural gas) or hydrogen," Hua Zhao, vice provost and dean of the engineering college at Brunel University London, told Agence France-Presse in 2019. Zhao said the hydrogen atoms in water molecules are bonded to oxygen atoms and it would take energy (typically by electrolysis) to release these hydrogen atoms so they could be burned as motor fuel. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on October 18, 2022 in an Instagram post Kamala Harris said, “We have to acknowledge gas is high which is the opposite of low.” By Ciara O'Rourke • October 18, 2022 "The energy required to break those bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water will always take more energy than the energy needed to get them together in a fuel cell or produced by the engine," Zhao said. Meyer, who had no formal scientific experience or credentials, died of a brain aneurysm in 1998. He claimed that his "water fuel cell" worked by taking the water and breaking itf hydrogen and oxygen and that the hydrogen could be used to fuel a car engine. Meyer’s claim seemed to defy thermodynamic principles. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can’t be created or destroyed, and that when it’s transferred from one form to another, the final state can't be greater than the original state. "Water is not a fuel. It never has been one, and it never will be one," longtime science writer Philip Ball wrote in 2007 for the London-based scientific journal Nature. "Water does not burn. Water is already burnt — it is spent fuel. It is exhaust." Our ruling An Instagram post showing a dated news broadcast in which inventor Stanley Meyer claims his "water fuel cell" could convert water into fuel and power an automobile engine. Meyer insisted someone could drive from Los Angeles to New York on 22 gallons of water using his invention. The claim has circulated in varying forms over the years and has been consistently debunked. We could find no evidence that water can be used as a fuel source. Such a feat would contradict thermodynamics. We rate this claim False.

The public health order Title 42 is "the last tool Border Patrol has to stop the overwhelming flood of illegal immigrants pouring into our country. If a public health policy that in effect limits immigration is rescinded, U.S. Border Patrol will have no tools left to protect the border, claimed Nevada’s Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Adam Laxalt. Title 42 is a section of federal law that gives the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the authority to deny entry to people coming from countries where there is an outbreak of an infectious disease. Immigration officials have enforced that law since the CDC invoked it in March 2020. This strategy that began as a way to slow the spread of COVID-19 has morphed into a political debate about immigration enforcement. Laxalt spotlighted the policy in an attack against Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., whom he’s trying to unseat in the November midterm election. "Cortez Masto voted to block an amendment that would keep Title 42 in place, the last tool Border Patrol has to stop the overwhelming flood of illegal immigrants pouring into our country," Laxalt said in an Aug. 8 campaign statement. Below is my statement in response to Senator @CortezMasto casting the deciding vote to pass a partisan $700 billion package that will raise taxes on businesses and working Nevada families. ⁰This is quite literally the last thing Nevadans need in the midst of a recession. pic.twitter.com/3I2K5Mv5NT— Adam Paul Laxalt (@AdamLaxalt) August 8, 2022 Laxalt was talking about an amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act offered by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. That amendment sought to keep Title 42 in place for 120 days after the COVID-19 public health emergency ends. (The CDC has not announced an end date for the emergency declaration.) The amendment did not pass and was left out of the larger bill. The Inflation Reduction Act, a bill on climate change, health care and corporate taxation, passed the House and Senate with only Democratic support. President Joe Biden signed it into law on Aug. 16. Cortez Masto voted against Lankford’s amendment. But the crux of Laxalt’s claim — that Title 42 is "the last tool" Border Patrol has to stop illegal immigration — is wrong. Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement tool Under federal law, Title 42 goes into effect if the U.S. surgeon general believes there is serious danger of a communicable disease being introduced through immigration. In March 2020, the CDC invoked the policy, prohibiting immigrants from entering the United States through land ports of entry at the borders with Canada and Mexico. Typically, when Border Patrol agents encounter immigrants at the southwest border, they question them and decide whether they have a reasonable fear of returning to their home country. If they do, they can seek asylum in the U.S. People allowed to apply for asylum are either detained or released while they await their court proceedings. However, immigrants processed under the public health policy are not screened or allowed to seek asylum. Instead, they are immediately sent back to the country from which they came. 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 Seeking asylum is a legally recognized process under U.S. immigration law, even if a person arrives without authorization. In May 2022, the Biden administration tried to end the public health policy, but a federal court in Louisiana blocked the decision. The Department of Justice has appealed that ruling. Title 42 is not ‘the last tool’ available to Border Patrol agents Title 42, a public health policy, has in effect been used to deter entry and to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum, according to Rick Su, immigration law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But that doesn’t mean it’s an immigration enforcement tool, or the last option available to Border Patrol agents to stop illegal entries. Physical barriers like fences and surveillance technology such as drones are also in place to help mitigate illegal immigration. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act outlines enforcement methods that Border Patrol agents can use, said Su. Su referenced expedited removal, which allows a Border Patrol agent to send immigrants back to the country they came from without them having a court hearing. "We already can remove individuals who are illegally immigrating," without relying on Title 42, Su said. And deportations that are not under Title 42 carry more consequences. Immigrants who are deported are not legally allowed to return to the United States for the next five years. Immigrants apprehended under immigration law can also face legal consequences such as fines or misdemeanor charges. People who are caught repeatedly crossing the border illegally can also be subject to felony charges. These penalties don’t apply to people who are returned under Title 42. Since the 1990s, the U.S. has pursued a "prevention through deterrence" policy, said Susan Akram, a Boston University law professor. This means the prospect for immigrants of crossing "hostile terrain, primarily the Sonoran Desert, where they have a high rate of disappearing or perishing," would discourage others from trying to cross the border illegally, Akram said. The U.S. historically has also entered into agreements with Mexico to provide financial aid in exchange for managing the flow of migrants, she said. "These are just a few of the many and complex ways embedded in U.S. law and policy that prevent immigrants from entering the U.S.," Akram said. Our ruling Laxalt claimed that Title 42 is "the last tool Border Patrol has to stop the overwhelming flood of illegal immigrants pouring into our country." That is inaccurate. Title 42 is not an immigration enforcement tool, despite it in effect limiting entries into the United States during the pandemic. Immigration law had been codified and enforced by Border Patrol agents for decades before the public health policy was invoked in March 2020. Expedited removals, physical barriers and legal consequences for repeated crossers remain available to prevent illegal immigration into the United States. We rate this claim Fals

"Documents prove White House behind entire FBI targeting of Trump. Biden lied. The day after FBI agents searched former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, reporters asked the White House whether President Joe Biden had advance information about the search. "No. The president was not briefed, did not — was not aware of it. No," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded. "No one at the White House was given a heads up. No, that did not happen." Now, some conservative pundits are suggesting a letter from the National Archives shows Biden not only knew about the raid but his administration was steering the investigation from the beginning. "BOMBSHELL," read the caption on an Aug. 24 Facebook video posted by Benny Johnson, a conservative commentator and frequent Biden critic. "Documents PROVE White House behind ENTIRE FBI targeting Trump. Biden LIED!?" Johnson went on in the video to misleadingly claim that the information revealed in the video shows "the White House ordered this raid." The post, which included a video clip from Fox News, was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A close look at the document at this claim’s center shows no such thing. There is no evidence the Biden administration initiated the probe nor that Biden "lied" about his foreknowledge of the investigation or the Mar-a-Lago search. The timeline and legal circumstances leading up to the FBI’s investigation show that although White House attorneys were contacted by the Justice Department in April, as federal law required, the probe into Trump’s handling of documents belonging to the National Archives was underway long before then. The Presidential Records Act requires that all presidential records be returned to the National Archives upon a president’s departure from office. Source of the post’s claim Johnson’s video showed conservative journalist John Solomon being interviewed by Fox News host Sean Hannity on Aug. 22. Hannity began the segment by saying the Biden administration "lied to the American people about what they knew and when they knew it" about the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s handling of presidential records. Solomon told Hannity that not only did the White House know, but they were "pushing the investigation." As evidence, Solomon referenced a letter Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote May 10 to Trump representative Evan Corcoran. Solomon said this letter showed that the FBI launched its criminal investigation into Trump only after the White House gave permission to the National Archives to turn over documents to investigators. That’s inaccurate. What the letter said The main purpose of Steidel Wall’s letter to Trump representatives was to reject Trump’s request that the National Archives delay turning over 15 boxes of records to the FBI. The National Archives had retrieved the records from Mar-a-Lago, which is in Palm Beach, Florida, in mid-January 2022 following discussions with Trump’s representatives throughout 2021. Upon inspection, the National Archives had determined those boxes included over 100 documents with classified markings, comprising 700 pages. It notified the Justice Department about this discovery. The Justice Department then asked the White House Counsel’s Office to permit the National Archives to turn the documents over to the FBI, according to Wall. The reason that request had to go through the White House is because of the Presidential Records Act. The law states that any presidential records held by the archivist must "remain in the exclusive legal custody of the president and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the president, not NARA." On April 11, the White House Counsel’s office granted that permission, according to Wall’s letter. About the investigation It’s clear from public records and statements that the National Archives had referred the case to the Justice Department long before the White House officially approved the department’s request for access to the documents. On Feb. 18, former archivist David Ferriero said in a letter to Congress that because the boxes of records retrieved in January contained classified documents, it had contacted the Justice Department. That referral to the Justice Department happened on Feb. 9 and is what started the investigation, according to the redacted search-warrant affidavit released Aug. 26. Featured Fact-check Instagram posts stated on October 27, 2022 in a post Video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene planted pipe bombs at Republican and Democratic party headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021. By Gabrielle Settles • October 31, 2022 The affidavit states that the Justice Department was conducting a criminal investigation into the "improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment of government records" as a result of that referral. The affidavit became public two days after the Facebook post was published. What White House has said Biden and Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, have said that neither the president nor the White House were given advance notice of the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago. Both have mostly deflected questions about the case since then, citing the ongoing, independent investigation by the Justice Department. Jean-Pierre acknowledged the May letter in an interview on CNN and said that it speaks for itself. On Aug. 9, the day after the search, Jean-Pierre said the White House learned about the raid from the media. "The president and the White House learned about this FBI search from public reports," she said. "We learned, just like the American public did yesterday, and we did not have advance notice of this activity." A reporter asked Biden on Aug. 25 how much advance notice he had of the FBI’s plan to search Mar-a-Lago. "I didn’t have any advance notice," Biden replied. "None. Zero. Not one single bit." On Aug. 26, the same day the affidavit requesting the search warrant of Trump’s home was released, Biden was asked if he was concerned that national security could have been compromised at Trump’s home. "We’ll let the Justice Department determine that," Biden said. "We’ll see what happens." He spoke a bit more about it that same day with reporters before leaving on Marine One, but said right at the start, "I haven’t seen the report on Mar-a-Lago, so I’m not commenting." Biden dismissed questions on whether Trump could have declassified all the documents: "I’m not going to comment. I mean, because I don’t know the detail. I don’t even want to know. I’ll let the Justice Department take care of that." The subject has come up several times in White House briefings by Jean-Pierre, who has mostly steered clear of commenting on the investigation or anything related. CNN’s Don Lemon brought up the letter in an Aug. 25 interview. Lemon asked Jean-Pierre, "Who in the White House knew about this investigation? Because the president has been adamant that he knew nothing. He got no warning about it." "The president was not briefed" on the investigation, Jean-Pierre said. "No one at the White House was briefed. We are not briefed on investigation." She later said, "We do not comment. We do not interfere and we do not get briefed. So, when it comes to the investigation itself, we are just not going to comment." After the redacted affidavit was released, Jean-Pierre also declined to comment. Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that "documents prove White House behind entire FBI targeting of Trump. Biden lied." The document at the center of this claim does no such thing. It shows that the Justice Department reached out to White House Counsel’s Office to request that the National Archives be granted permission to share documents with the FBI. The Presidential Records Act requires that the request be made to the current president to turn over the National Archives documents to anyone. The Justice Department was first notified by the National Archives that the documents contained classified materials in February, which is what launched the investigation, according to a search warrant affidavit. The White House Counsel’s Office approved the FBI’s request for access to the documents in April, after the investigation started. Biden said he had no foreknowledge of the Mar-a-Lago search. This documentation does not dispute that. We rate this claim False.

The IRS is hiring 87,000 new agents to police people who will owe more federal tax after having their student loans forgiven What if Joe Biden’s move to forgive the student debt of more than 40 million Americans is not meant "to provide more breathing room" to Americans, as his administration said, but part of a self-serving plot to increase government revenue? An Aug. 29 Facebook post claims that Biden's student debt relief plan is simply a scheme to increase taxable income. The post, from a page called "Don’t Trust Government," says the forgiven debt "shows up as income," which turns people into "net tax-payers," pushes them into higher tax brackets, and increases the amount of federal income tax the government collects. "People who misreport on their $10k - $20k increased income will be audited by the new army" of 87,000 IRS agents, the post says. 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 Facebook.) But the forgiven debt will not be treated as taxable federal income, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, the pandemic stimulus package President Joe Biden signed into law last year. It included a provision to exclude counting federal student loan relief as taxable income through 2025. Six states — Arkansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Wisconsin and North Carolina — could impose a tax on the forgiven debt, though. And while the IRS does expect to use Congressional funding to expand its workforce after years of budget cuts, the 87,000 figure is a bit misleading. 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 originated in a 2021 Treasury Department assessment of what the IRS would do with $80 billion in funding over 10 years. But the report did not say that the new hires would all be agents working in enforcement, and some of the money would go toward modernizing technology and offering taxpayer services. While the Treasury is expected to make new hires, it is still finalizing how it will allocate the newly approved funds. Simultaneously, an estimated 50,000 employees are expected to retire in the next five to six years, the Treasury Department told PolitiFact in early August. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said audit rates for households making less than $400,000 would not increase and enforcement resources would focus on high-end taxpayers, Reuters reported. "I direct that any additional resources — including any new personnel or auditors that are hired — shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels," Yellen wrote Aug. 10. Our ruling A recent Facebook post said the IRS is hiring an "army" of 87,000 agents to deal with a surge in federal tax income resulting from Biden’s student debt relief plan. The IRS plans to increase its workforce, but over 10 years, not all at once. Many of the new hires are expected to come onboard as 50,000 current IRS workers retire. And forgiven student loan debt will not be taxed federally, though it might be subject to state taxes in some places. We rate the post Fals

Fox News sought the legal "right to tell lies." A viral post recycled an old claim that Fox News Channel is officially registered as an entertainment outlet — not an authentic news organization. To build the case, the post said Fox even sought the legal right to tell lies. "Fox is not a news organization. It is GOP propaganda in a format that appears to be a TV news channel," an Aug. 21 Facebook post read. The image goes on to claim that Fox won a legal appeal "that declared it had no legal obligation to be truthful in its reporting." Then it asked: "What reputable news organization would litigate for its right to tell lies?" This claim about Fox News is wrong, and 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 Facebook.) PolitiFact fact-checked a similar statement in 2014. We found that the lawsuit did not involve Fox News Channel; it centered on a local TV station in Tampa, Florida, owned and operated by a subsidiary of the Fox Corp. Even so, the Fox-owned affiliate didn't contend it had no legal obligation to be truthful, nor did a court uphold that. At issue is a lawsuit involving two married reporters who sued their former employer, WTVT, Channel 13, for breach of contract and retaliatory firing in 1998. Two years prior, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre — the reporting duo — began examining the use of a synthetic growth hormone in Florida dairy cattle. The reporters could not come to an agreement with WTVT over edits to the story. 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 WTVT aired a revised version of their report. According to Akre, the station's move distorted the truth — which, she claimed, violated a provision by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. The station denied that characterization. Akre further alleged that WTVT fired her and Wilson for threatening to notify the FCC, violating the agency's whistleblower's statute. Meanwhile, the station said it terminated the reporters for refusing to make revisions to the story. In 2000, a Tampa jury ruled in Akre’s favor. WTVT appealed the case. In court, the station argued FCC's news distortion policy is not a codified law; it also said the First Amendment bars the judicial review of editorial discretion. An appeals court agreed that the news distortion policy did not qualify as a protected rule under the whistleblower's statute. The ruling did not address the station's First Amendment argument. In 2014, Akre told PolitiFact that she didn't remember WTVT admitting to lying and defending it as a legal right. Our ruling A Facebook post said Fox News sought the legal "right to tell lies." The post cited a lawsuit from 1998. PolitiFact found that the case did not involve Fox News Channel; it centered on a local TV station owned and operated by a subsidiary of Fox Corp. The lawsuit involved two reporters who sued a Fox-owned affiliate over breach of contract and retaliatory firing. The station didn't contend it had no legal obligation to be truthful, nor did a court uphold that. We rate this claim Fals

“The Earth just started spinning faster than ever before and scientists are gravely concerned. Twenty-four hours is hardly enough time in a day, but now the internet says the days are getting shorter! Are scientists worried? Should you be worried? Several posts on Facebook, mostly posted Aug. 7 on meme pages, have stated that the Earth "just started spinning faster and scientists are gravely concerned." The claim was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We wondered if either part of the statement was true. First: Yes, on June 29, 2022, the official length of day was 1.59 milliseconds shorter than 24 hours. That’s the fastest the Earth has ever spun since we started keeping track with precision of atomic clocks. However, that’s "nothing out of the ordinary," according to a press release from NASA. According to Wolfgang Dick, a spokesman for the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, it’s inaccurate to suggest there was anything sudden about this change. "(T)his fluctuation is quite normal," wrote Dick to PolitiFact in an email. The International Earth Rotation and Systems Service, based in Frankfurt, Germany, maintains global time and reference frame standards. Several things can affect the rotation of the Earth and, thus, its spin speed, including a slight wobble of the Earth on its axis, called the Chandler wobble. The moon stabilizes the Earth’s wobble to some extent. According to Forbes, possible reasons that the Earth spun faster in June include seismic activity, changes in the Earth’s core, and polar ice caps melting. 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 Second: Are scientists "gravely concerned?" We contacted Leonid Zotov, an associate professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow and senior researcher at Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, who recently presented his paper on Earth’s changing rotation. "The changes in Earth's rotation are quite small, at the level of milliseconds," he told us. "The(y) cannot make any harm." He also noted that the Earth changes the speed at which it spins regularly over the course of a year, going slightly faster in the summer, with no detrimental effects. Still, Zotov describes these changes as "really interesting." "There are correlations with climate anomalies," he wrote. "My personal belie(f) is that this year's drafts and such events as La Niña in (the) central Pacific could be related to acceleration in our planet's rotation." With enough sped-up days, we might need to add a "negative leap second." As a leap day amounts to adding a day to a year, a negative leap second would subtract one second from the time. But changing official calendars can be complicated and isn’t always harmless. For example, a leap second added in 2012 crashed several websites, including Reddit. Our ruling It’s true that the Earth spun slightly faster on June 29, 2022 — 1.59 milliseconds faster than usual. Facebook posts suggested this means Earth is now continuously spinning faster, at a pace so significant that scientists are worried. But 1.59 milliseconds isn’t significantly outside of expectations. There is no evidence to suggest this should pose a danger to anyone on Earth, so scientists are not "gravely concerned." We rate these claims Half Tru

The U.K. is no longer recommending the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for pregnant women Outdated guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations is being taken out of context on social media to purport that pregnant women should not receive the vaccine. An Aug. 30 Instagram post claimed the United Kingdom government is no longer recommending the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women. The post includes a screenshot of a document that says, "safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at this time," and "women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated." There is no date, title or source attached to the document. 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 Facebook.) This document does not accurately reflect the U.K.’s current guidance on vaccinations. The U.K. government strongly recommends pregnant women receive the COVID-19 vaccine, according to its most recent guidance updated in April. "If you have COVID-19 disease in later pregnancy, both you and your unborn baby are at increased risk of serious disease needing hospital treatment, and intensive care support," the U.K. government’s report states. "It is important that you are protected with all your vaccine doses to keep you and your baby safe. Don’t wait until after you have given birth." The U.K. government’s current guidance also states that there is no evidence COVID-19 vaccines have any effect on fertility or a person’s chances of becoming pregnant. 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 Additionally, it says vaccines can be received while breastfeeding. This is in line with guidance released by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. More than 100,000 pregnant women in the U.K. have been vaccinated against COVID-19, the government reported in April. The outdated information cited in the Instagram post comes from a summary of a government report about Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine released almost two years ago. The report says its information is based on data that was available when the U.K. first authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use on Dec. 1, 2020. At the time, the U.K. did not recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women due to the limited amount of research that had been conducted. Soon after this report was released, at the end of December 2020, the U.K. government updated its recommendations to state that animal studies did not indicate the COVID-19 vaccine caused direct or indirect harmful effects during or after pregnancy. The U.K. has continued to update its guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations as more research has been conducted. Our ruling An Instagram post claimed the U.K. government is no longer recommending the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women. This post took outdated information out of context. The U.K. government currently strongly recommends pregnant and breastfeeding women receive the COVID-19 vaccine. We rate this claim Fals

Joe Biden's student debt forgiveness plan is a "bailout for rich kids. A TV ad trolled President Joe Biden by using actors to portray blue-collar workers who, insincerely, sang the praises of his student loan debt forgiveness plan. "Biden’s plan to pay other people’s college loans using my tax dollars is a great idea," a waitress says with mock enthusiasm. "Want to be a struggling artist?" a mechanic says. "College is on me." The ad, which was posted to YouTube Aug. 26, ends with a narrator repeating words that appear on the screen: "Tell Congress, stop Biden’s bailout for rich kids." The Republican National Committee and several GOP lawmakers have echoed the sentiment that Biden’s plan serves the rich at the expense of the working class. Some borrowers who have incomes well above the median household income in America do qualify for Biden’s debt relief. But the vast majority of the relief is concentrated on borrowers with lower incomes, according to independent estimates. Who the plan covers Student debt is the largest source of nonmortgage debt owed by families, the latest Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, released in 2020, shows. Under Biden’s plan, $10,000 of federal student loan debt will be waived for individuals earning less than $125,000 per year or for couples earning less than $250,000; an additional $10,000 will be waived for people falling under those income thresholds who have also received Pell Grants, which serve low-income Americans. Meanwhile, there are questions about whether Biden’s plan would hold up in court. Some beneficiaries arguably are "rich" The minute-long attack ad is from American Action Network, a conservative, nonprofit advocacy organization whose leadership includes former elected officials who are Republicans. To back up the ad’s claim about a bailout of the rich, network spokesperson Calvin Moore pointed to the median household income in America which, according to the latest Census Bureau figures, was $67,521 in 2020, and noting that the $250,000 income cap in Biden’s plan is nearly four times higher. Moore also cited a Washington Post editorial that said Biden’s plan subsidizes "the education debt of people with valuable degrees," including "white-collar professionals with high future salaries." 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 The income caps in Biden’s plan make borrowers with incomes well above the median eligible for relief. But that doesn’t make it a bailout of the rich. The White House estimated that, among borrowers who are no longer in school, 87% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. The Education Department told us it had to deduce the income of many borrowers using Census data and statistical models. With any model, there’s going to be uncertainty. Most debt relief to bottom 60% Two independent estimates show student debt forgiveness mostly impacts on people with lower incomes. The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, in an updated assessment after Biden’s plan was released, estimated that about 74% of the debt relief will go to American households in the bottom 60% by income, or those making less than $82,400 a year. The assessment estimates that 4.7% of the relief will go to households earning between $141,096 and $212,209; just less than 1% will go to those earning between $212,209 and $321,699. That roughly squares with a Federal Reserve Bank of New York analysis from April. It estimated that $10,000 in relief combined with a $75,000 income cap gave more than 80% of the benefits to people in neighborhoods where incomes were less than $78,000 a year. Those findings comport with an open letter sent to Biden in January 2021 by 54 scholars who study student debt. The letter says debt cancellation would disproportionately benefit students who have lower-income jobs after college. Student debt expert Mark Kantrowitz told PolitiFact that with the Biden plan’s focus on Pell Grant recipients, most of the people eligible for the debt relief are from lower-income families. He estimated that, based on the latest federal figures available, 94% of undergraduate students who received a Pell Grant in 2015-16 had an annual family adjusted gross income of less than $60,000. Our ruling American Action Network claimed that Biden's student debt forgiveness plan is a "bailout for rich kids." Some borrowers with incomes well above that of the median American household qualify for the debt relief. But the vast majority of student loan forgiveness will go to people on the lower end of the income scale. By one independent estimate, 75% of the debt relief will go to households in the bottom 60% by income. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression — our definition of Mostly False. RELATED: Is Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan legal? RELATED: Fact-checking statistics about Biden's student loan forgiveness plan RELATED: The Biden Promise Tracker and Biden’s promise to forgive student loan debt RELATED: IRS won’t tax student loan relief, but some states mig

An obscure filing with the Federal Election Commission shows Biden has formally announced his bid for another term Social media briefly erupted on Aug. 30 when it seemed that an obscure filing with the Federal Election Commission revealed some big news — that President Joe Biden was announcing his bid for a second term. The flurry of interest originated with a tweet by Steve Herman, chief national correspondent with Voice of America, that linked the disclosure filing to a major decision by Biden. Others on social media proceeded to share the news on Facebook and Instagram. Conservatives found humor in the notion that Biden would embark upon another run in 2024 when his disapproval ratings in FiveThirtyEight.com’s polling average are significantly outpacing his approval ratings. These posts, sometimes peppered with laughing emojis, attracted thousands of likes. But all the noise was premature. After hearing from the Democratic National Committee that his interpretation of the document was inaccurate, Herman deleted the tweet, saying he "misinterpreted" the filing. Later, Fox News published an article explaining how the confusion emerged. When PolitiFact reached out to the Democratic National Committee, they told us the same thing they had advised Herman. They said the filing was necessary to update the name of the treasurer of Biden’s campaign committee. The outgoing treasurer was taking a government job, they said. We located the documents in question and found that this marked the second time Biden campaign officials have filed an update to what is known as form F1A, both times changing the name of the treasurer. 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 The form, which is a one-page list of contact names and numbers, was filed Aug. 30, identifying the treasurer as Keana Spencer. The previous F1A, filed May 22, 2021, listed the treasurer as Andrea Wise. And the F1A filed before that, on Jan. 21, 2021 — one day after Biden was sworn in as president — named Iran Campana as treasurer. The notion that Biden would decline to run for a second term is not totally out of left field. If he were to run and win again, Biden would be 82 years old on Inauguration Day 2024, and 86 when his second term came to a close. Some Democratic officials have expressed concern about Biden running for another term. Recent polls by Quinnipiac University and The New York Times and Siena College have found majorities of Democrats preferring that Biden not run again in 2024. The White House has so far insisted that Biden plans to seek another term, even if he has yet to formally announce it. "To be clear, as the president has said repeatedly, he plans to run in 2024," tweeted White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in June. Either way, Biden has not officially announced a bid for a second term. The notion that Biden did so in an obscure federal disclosure filing is Fals