Diversas publicaciones en redes sociales afirman que los migrantes pueden utilizar una aplicación para conseguir vuelos gratuitos a Estados Unidos.
“Los demócratas están con el dinero de los estadounidenses financiando los vuelos de inmigrantes ilegales”, dice una publicación en TikTok del 8 de marzo. A continuación, el pie de foto enumera varias cosas, entre ellas: “¡300,000 inmigrantes ilegales pudieron utilizar una simple aplicación para conseguir un vuelo gratis a nuestro país junto con los millones a los que se les permitió entrar por nuestra frontera sur!”.
PolitiFact se ha asociado con TikTok para combatir los contenidos falsos, engañosos o inauténticos. Más información aquí.
El empresario Elon Musk y el ex presidente Donald Trump hicieron afirmaciones similares en X y en un discurso, respectivamente.
Las afirmaciones parecen basarse en un informe del 4 de marzo del Center for Immigration Studies, un think tank que aboga por reducir la inmigración y se opone a un programa de parole de la administración del Presidente Joe Biden para inmigrantes de determinados países.
El informe afirma que los vuelos de parole están creando vulnerabilidades de seguridad en los aeropuertos. Pero no dice que los inmigrantes estén recibiendo “vuelos gratis”.
El autor del informe, Todd Bensman, dijo en un comunicado publicado el 7 de marzo que “los nuevos informes decían incorrectamente que el propio gobierno estaba ‘volando’ a los inmigrantes, como si los contribuyentes estuvieran pagándolo. Que yo sepa, eso no es cierto, ni he informado nunca de algo que no sea que el programa exige a los inmigrantes pagar la cuenta”.
El informe de Bensman dice que 320,000 personas llegaron a los EE.UU. hasta diciembre de 2023 a través del programa de parole, que permite a ciertos inmigrantes de cuatro países vivir y trabajar en los EE.UU. durante un máximo de dos años. Los datos oficiales de la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) dicen que 327,000 cubanos, haitianos, nicaragüenses y venezolanos llegaron a EE.UU. desde enero de 2023 hasta diciembre de 2023.
Sin embargo, la afirmación de la publicación en TikTok es errónea, ya que dice que se está usando “el dinero de los estadounidenses” para financiar estos vuelos.
Los solicitantes deben superar un proceso que requiere un control de seguridad y antecedentes, deben tener un patrocinador en Estados Unidos y el proceso no se realiza a través de una aplicación del gobierno. Las personas que reciben parole a través de este programa tienen un estatus legal temporal en EE.UU. Tampoco reciben vuelos gratuitos al país, sino que compran sus propios boletos de avión, explicó a PolitiFact Nicole Hallet, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chicago.
Las personas en el programa de parole llegan a EE.UU. legalmente
En enero de 2023, Estados Unidos empezó a aceptar a 30,000 personas al mes, de forma colectiva, procedentes de Cuba, Haití, Nicaragua y Venezuela, a través de un programa de parole. Este programa permite a las personas entrar, vivir y trabajar legalmente en Estados Unidos durante dos años. Para acogerse a él, los inmigrantes necesitan un patrocinador en Estados Unidos.
Aunque las personas en parole están autorizadas a permanecer en Estados Unidos, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional puede revocar el parole si infringen las leyes estadounidenses. Las personas que sobrepasan el periodo de parole también pueden ser deportadas.
Hasta el 31 de enero de 2024, más de 357,000 cubanos, haitianos, nicaragüenses y venezolanos llegaron legalmente y obtuvieron el parole. Haití fue el país con más participantes en el programa, con 138,000 personas llegadas de ese país, seguido de 86,000 venezolanos, 74,000 cubanos y 58,000 nicaragüenses. EE.UU. concede el parole basándose en “un beneficio público significativo o razones humanitarias urgentes”.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, director de políticas del American Immigration Council, publicó el 11 de marzo en X que las personas que entran en Estados Unidos a través del programa de parole “no son ‘extranjeros ilegales’. Entran legalmente y tienen permiso oficial para estar aquí”. Respondía así a una publicación en X del senador Ted Cruz, republicano de Texas, quien calificó a los participantes en el programa de “extranjeros ilegales”.
Los funcionarios republicanos de Texas demandaron al gobierno de Biden alegando que la iniciativa federal es ilegal. Un juez federal desestimó la demanda sin pronunciarse.
Nuestro veredicto
Una publicación en TiktTok dice que “los demócratas están con el dinero de los estadounidenses financiando los vuelos de inmigrantes ilegales.”
Un programa de parole de la administración de Biden permitió a 327,000 migrantes entrar legalmente en EE.UU. desde Venezuela, Haití, Cuba y Nicaragua desde enero hasta diciembre de 2023. Ellos entraron legalmente y están temporalmente autorizados a estar en el país.
Una vez aprobados para el programa de parole, los participantes deben pagar sus propios vuelos a Estados Unidos.
While speaking about the potential loss of U.S. auto manufacturing jobs to foreign countries, former President Donald Trump said if he isn’t elected, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
President Joe Biden’s campaign quickly accused Trump of fomenting “political violence.” The Trump campaign said Trump was clearly using the term in the context of an economic bloodbath.
“If you actually watch and listen to the section, he was talking about the auto industry and tariffs,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign, told the Washington Post, adding that “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.”
That explanation seems the most plausible, given the context of Trump’s comments.
Speaking at a rally on the grounds of the Dayton International Airport in Ohio, Trump said that over the last three decades, Mexico has siphoned off U.S. auto manufacturing jobs, and he accused China of building car manufacturing plants in Mexico that will cost U.S. autoworkers their jobs.
Trump, March 16: China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.
The Chinese electric vehicle company BYD says it is planning to build an EV plant in Mexico. But the company says it intends to sell the cars locally to consumers in Mexico and has no plans to sell any across the border in the U.S.
On Truth Social on March 18, Trump wrote that his words were being purposely misconstrued.
“The Fake News Media, and their Democrat Partners in the destruction of our Nation, pretended to be shocked at my use of the word BLOODBATH, even though they fully understood that I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry,” Trump wrote, promising that if elected U.S. auto manufacturing “WILL THRIVE LIKE NEVER BEFORE.”
(An aside: When Trump was president, auto manufacturing jobs rose about 5.8% to 1,012,500 in his first two years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but dipped in his third year, and then again sharply during the pandemic. There were 949,300 auto manufacturing jobs in the U.S. when Trump left office. Under Biden, the number of auto manufacturing jobs has increased about 12.2% to 1,065,100 in February, the most recent data available.)
The Trump campaign also noted — rightly — that one of the definitions of “bloodbath,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a major economic disaster.” We did a Nexis search of TV news transcripts and found numerous instances of bloodbath being used in that way.
Another definition provided by Merriam-Webster is “a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle,” which is how Biden, his campaign and others viewed the former president’s “bloodbath” comment.
In a post on X, Biden posted a clip of Trump saying, “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.” Biden commented, “It’s clear this guy wants another January 6.”
At the start of his speech in Ohio, Trump saluted as the sound system played a recording of the so-called J6 Prison Choir singing its song “Justice for All.” The song is a mashup of the choir — featuring people incarcerated for their role in the attack on the Capitol — singing the “Star Spangled Banner” as Trump recites the Pledge of Allegiance.
After the song finished, Trump praised the “spirit” of the “hostages,” a word he has repeatedly used to describe those convicted of various crimes for their roles in the Jan. 6 riot.
“They’ve been treated terribly and very unfairly, and you know that and everybody knows that,” Trump said, vowing that once elected, he would work on their behalf to free them.
“And we’re going to be working on that, soon as — the first day we get into office,” Trump said. “We’re going to save our country, and we’re going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots, and are. You see the spirit, this cheering. They’re cheering while they’re doing that, and they did that in prison. And it’s a disgrace, in my opinion.”
Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 17 about Trump’s “bloodbath” comments, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said Trump’s rhetoric often “walks up to the edge,” allowing people on both sides of the political aisle to interpret his meaning.
“That kind of rhetoric, it’s always on the edge, maybe doesn’t cross, maybe does, depending upon your perspective,” Cassidy said. “I also think, though, that the mainstream media contributes to it. If you take the one about the bloodbath, which arguably could be about an economic bloodbath not about kind of street violence related to the election, then it gives his defenders something to focus on, something – which was distorted. So, yes, he always walks up to the edge on that rhetoric. And again, that’s why people are concerned. But sometimes the mainstream media, whether they want to or not, can’t resist, and they go just a little bit too far, which distracts from what could be the impact.”
Cassidy noted that the definition of bloodbath includes an economic disaster.
“And so if he’s speaking about the auto industry in particular in Ohio, then you can take it with a little bit more context,” Cassidy said. “That’s why I say you walk up to the line. Depending upon the perspective, somebody is going to interpret it. He’s running against Biden, so Biden’s going to say it’s about political violence. His defenders want to defend him, and so they’re going to say it’s about economic disaster. There’s always just that little bit of tension there, which allows the dispute about the interpretation as opposed to the kind of general sort of, ‘Is this a person we want to have in office?’”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.
The word du jour in the 2024 presidential campaign is “bloodbath” — specifically, what former President Donald Trump did or didn’t mean when he used the term at a March 16 Ohio rally.
President Joe Biden’s campaign team plucked a nine-second clip of Trump saying, “If I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country, that’ll be the least of it” and framed it as violent rhetoric.
The Biden campaign posted March 16 on X: “Donald Trump said there would be a ‘bloodbath’ if he wasn’t elected and that if he lost there would be no more elections.” The next day, Biden’s account shared on X the “bloodbath” clip and wrote, “It’s clear this guy wants another January 6.”
Without context, some voters could assume that Trump’s “bloodbath” remarks were predicting violence by his supporters should he lose at the polls. On Truth Social, Trump responded March 18 that the media and Democrats “pretended to be shocked at my use of the word BLOODBATH, even though they fully understood that I was simply referring to imports” allowed by Biden “which are killing the automobile industry.”
Politicians, pundits and social media users debated Trump’s “bloodbath” remark in the days following the speech. Some major news outlets including The New York Times, ABC and The Associated Press wrote that Trump warned of a “bloodbath” in headlines without the auto industry context. Although the text of the articles explained the context, when headlines alone are shared on social media, it doesn’t tell the full story.
The Biden campaign told PolitiFact the term needed to be considered alongside Trump’s other rhetoric in this speech, pointing to Trump’s comments about people imprisoned after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. More than 1,350 defendants have been charged in the attack, including hundreds for assaulting police officers or using deadly weapons. Trump called them “hostages,” even though they are being given due process — something that former Vice President Mike Pence and former Trump aide Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also pointed out in March 17 Sunday shows.
Given the focus on Trump’s rally, we wanted to provide full context for the “bloodbath” remark as well as his comments about not having elections if he loses and the Jan. 6 defendants.
Trump spoke for more than 90 minutes in Vandalia, Ohio, days before the state’s March 19 U.S. Senate primary. Trump endorsed businessman Bernie Moreno in the Republican contest.
About 28 minutes into the speech, Trump talked about Biden’s plans for electric vehicles harming the U.S. auto industry. The Biden administration has set a goal to have electric vehicles comprise half of all new vehicle sales by 2030 and offered significant aid to the U.S. auto sector to keep it competitive in the electric vehicle marketplace. Recent news reports, based on unnamed sources, have said Biden is poised to relax elements of his plan.
The relevant portion of Trump’s remarks (around minute 33 in this video) started with a critique of the United Auto Workers union, which endorsed Biden in this year’s election:
“But if you look at the United Auto Workers, what they’ve done to their people is horrible. They want to do this all-electric nonsense where the cars don’t go far. They cost too much. And they’re all made in China. And the head of the United Auto Workers never probably shook hands with a Republican before they’re destroying — you know, Mexico has taken, over a period of 30 years, 34% of the automobile manufacturing business in our country, think of it, went to Mexico.
“China now is building a couple of massive plants, where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and … they think that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you’re listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal, those big, monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us, no. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars.
“If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not gonna sell those cars.”
Trump went on to talk about cars being manufactured in Mexico and his promise to institute “100% tariffs” on cars manufactured outside the United States.
About 20 minutes later, Trump turned his comments to stopping “Joe Biden and his thugs.”
“We’re the only ones, and they know this, that could stop them. We’re the only ones, there’s nobody else around. If this election, if this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country. Does that make sense? I don’t think you’re going to have another election in this country if we don’t win this election. I don’t think you’re going to have another election or certainly not an election that’s meaningful.”
Along with his warnings about elections, Trump also repeated his support for the Jan. 6 defendants, a signature talking point at his rallies.
Before Trump spoke at the Ohio rally, an announcer said, “Please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6 hostages.” The crowd then heard a recording of the “The Star Spangled Banner” performed by the J6 Prison Choir, men jailed for their actions during the Capitol riot.
Trump saluted and then said at the rally, “Thank you very much, and you see the spirit from the hostages and that’s what they are as hostages. They’ve been treated terribly and very unfairly and you know that and everybody knows that. And we’re going to be working on that soon. The first day we get into office we are going to save our country and we are going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots and are.”
RELATED: Did Donald Trump make these 27 campaign promises? Fact-checking this viral list
RELATED: All of our fact-checks of Joe Biden on the Truth-O-Meter
RELATED: All of our fact-checks of Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter
Un video en Facebook dice revelar un código secreto para saber si espían tu teléfono. Pero este código no es secreto, ni tampoco revelará si tu teléfono es espiado, solo si tus llamadas son desviadas.
“Te gustaría saber si te están escuchando o espiando tus llamadas de teléfono?”, dice la publicación en Facebook del 17 de febrero. “Pues aquí te enseño. Primero ve como si vas a hacer una llamada y marca este número, *#21# y llama”.
El subtítulo del video también dice: “Como saber si espían tu teléfono”.
La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).
En el video un hombre marca en un teléfono *#21# y supuestamente demuestra unas opciones que dirán si eres espiado.
“Esta configuración no es una forma de comprobar quién te está ‘espiando’, es sólo una forma de comprobar el desvío de llamadas”, le dijo a PolitiFact Ed Fernandez, vocero de Google, el cual vende teléfonos y provee líneas telefónicas a través de T-Mobile.
Él nos dijo que marcar el número *#21# muestra si tu teléfono tiene habilitada la opción de desviar llamadas. Por ejemplo, la función de desviar llamadas sirve si tienes otro teléfono y quieres que tus llamadas se transfieran a ese número. Pero esa es una opción que solo puede habilitarla el dueño del teléfono marcando ese número u otro código, yendo a los ajustes de su celular o a la página web de su compañía telefónica.
El código *#21# es conocido como un código de interrogación. Estos códigos permiten a los usuarios descubrir menús que muestran información adicional de su teléfono.
Norton, una compañía de seguridad digital, dice que generalmente estos códigos no muestran si un teléfono está siendo espiado, ya que estos son generalmente usados para cuando alguien quiere activar o desactivar ajustes como desvíos de llamadas en sus propios dispositivos.
Aunque es posible que alguien agarre tu teléfono para configurarlo y desviar tus llamadas a su teléfono, tú aún puedes deshabilitar la opción cuando quieras en tus ajustes. Tampoco pueden escuchar las llamadas que hagas de tu teléfono.
La publicación menciona otro código — ##002# — que supuestamente desactiva los teléfonos que te están espiando. Este código puede desactivar el desvío de llamadas, pero eso depende de la compañía de teléfono.
La habilidad de usar estos códigos depende de cada compañía telefónica. Eso significa que el *#21# podría mostrar si el desvío de llamadas está habilitado en un teléfono, pero podría mostrar otras opciones como cuanta data telefónica tienes en otro.
PolitiFact probó el código *#21# en dos teléfonos con líneas de diferentes compañías telefónicas para comprobar si funciona.
En uno de los teléfonos, el menú como en el video apareció, pero decía error y que habían fallas en todas las opciones de desvío de llamadas.
Screenshot de un teléfono de PolitiFact
En el otro teléfono, simplemente nos dijo que el código era invalido.
Screenshot de un teléfono de PolitiFact
Nuestro veredicto
Una publicación en Facebook dice que puedes marcar *#21# para “saber si espían tu teléfono”.
Esto es engañoso.
Al marcar *#21# puedes desviar las llamadas que te llegan a otro dispositivo. Pero eso no significa que alguien está escuchando tus conversaciones sin saberlo. Las llamadas las puedes desviar, pero no se pueden escuchar en dos partes a la vez.
Para que alguien desvíe tu llamada, tendría que tener acceso a tu teléfono para configurarlo o acceso a tu información personal telefónica. Y si ese es el caso, la opción puede desactivarse inmediatamente a través de los ajustes en el teléfono.
Calificamos esta publicación como Falsa.
Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.
Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.
Algunos usuarios de las redes sociales afirman que una propuesta de enmienda del código penal de Canadá prohíbe el cristianismo o permite encarcelar a los cristianos por citar la Biblia.
“Es ilegal ser critiano en canada ley C-367”, dice el pie de foto de una publicación en TikTok del 9 de marzo. La creadora del video dice que “puedes ir a la cárcel” y añade que “En Canadá quieren pasar una ley llamada C-367 donde las personas que son cristianas o practican cierta religión pueden ir preso”.
(Captura de pantalla del video de TikTok)
La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).
Encontramos otras publicaciones en redes sociales diciendo cosas similares.
El proyecto de ley C-367 fue presentado en noviembre por Yves-François Blanchet, líder del partido canadiense Bloc Québécois. Pero este proyecto no ha sido aprobado.
El proyecto de ley no menciona el cristianismo ni ninguna otra religión. Busca eliminar las exenciones religiosas como defensa para incitar al odio, el antisemitismo o la violencia, según su autor. No prohíbe el cristianismo y no conduciría a arrestos simplemente por citar la Biblia. Según los términos del proyecto de ley, alguien podría ser detenido si cita la Biblia a la vez que incita a la violencia y denigra a un grupo, pero citar la Biblia no es en sí un delito, dijeron expertos a PolitiFact.
¿Qué es el proyecto de ley C-367?
El proyecto de ley busca modificar el Código Penal de Canadá en una sección sobre propaganda del odio. Propone dos cambios en el código.
En primer lugar, propone derogar el párrafo 319(3)(b) del código, que decía que una persona no puede ser condenada por un delito de promoción deliberada del odio “si, de buena fe, la persona expresó o intentó establecer mediante un argumento una opinión sobre un tema religioso o una opinión basada en una creencia en un texto religioso”.
En segundo lugar, propone derogar el párrafo 319(3.1)(b), que decía que una persona no puede ser condenada por promoción voluntaria del antisemitismo “si, de buena fe, expresó o intentó establecer mediante un argumento una opinión sobre un tema religioso o una opinión basada en una creencia en un texto religioso”.
En un debate el 28 de noviembre en el Parlamento canadiense, Blanchet dijo al Primer Ministro Justin Trudeau que el proyecto de ley respondía a las amenazas contra la comunidad judía.
“En los últimos días se han oído disparos en Montreal. Se han roto ventanas y se han hecho grafitis dirigidos específicamente contra la comunidad judía”, dijo Blanchet. “Se teme que estas acciones hayan sido de algún modo alentadas por una excepción del Código Penal que permite la incitación al odio y la incitación a la violencia”.
La propuesta de Blanchet no hace referencia al cristianismo, pero los críticos sostienen que los cambios podrían dar lugar a cargos contra un cristiano que hiciera declaraciones contrarias a la comunidad LGBTQ+.
Joanie Riopel, secretaria de prensa del Bloc Québécois, que dirige Blanchet, declaró a PolitiFact que, en el contexto de la guerra entre Israel y Hamás, el discurso del odio, la violencia y el antisemitismo han aumentado en Quebec y Canadá. Riopel citó a un predicador religioso de Montreal que pidió la muerte de los sionistas en una manifestación propalestina.
Por ello, el Bloc Québécois propuso el proyecto de ley C-367, “cuyo único propósito es eliminar las exenciones religiosas para la incitación pública al odio, la promoción deliberada del odio y la promoción deliberada del antisemitismo”, dijo Riopel.
El código en su forma actual “permite a cualquiera esconderse detrás de la religión en el contexto de la incitación pública al odio”, dijo Riopel.
El proyecto de ley sólo ha superado la primera de las tres lecturas obligatorias en la Cámara de los Comunes. Si se aprueba allí, también tendría que superar tres lecturas en el Senado.
En febrero, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, otro miembro del Bloc Québécois, presentó un proyecto de ley similar en la Cámara de los Comunes, el proyecto de ley C-373. Tampoco ha pasado más allá de la primera lectura, pero, debido a las normas parlamentarias, se debatiría antes que la C-367. El debate en segunda lectura de la C-373 debería tener lugar antes del 30 de junio, según Riopel.
La opinión de los expertos
El proyecto de ley propuesto no prohibiría el cristianismo, dijo Richard Moon, profesor de derecho de la Universidad de Windsor que investiga la libertad religiosa y la libertad de expresión.
“La prohibición del discurso de odio en el Código Penal sólo se aplica a los discursos que vilipendian a los miembros de un determinado grupo (racial, religioso, etc.). El discurso debe ser extremo, por ejemplo, describir a los miembros del grupo como infrahumanos o intrínsecamente peligrosos”, dijo Moon. “No estoy seguro de qué podría decir un cristiano que sería tan extremo”.
Moon dijo que un cristiano que simplemente dijera que la homosexualidad es pecado no se consideraría discurso de odio, pero decir que los homosexuales son pedófilos quizas sí.
“Pero esa no es, que yo sepa, la opinión de ningún grupo cristiano, o al menos de ningún grupo mayoritario”, dijo Moon.
Emmett Macfarlane, profesor de ciencias políticas de la Universidad de Waterloo que estudia el discurso de odio en internet y la libertad de expresión, calificó las afirmaciones sobre el proyecto de ley C-367 de “tonterías en su mayoría”.
Macfarlane dijo que hay un listón muy alto en la ley canadiense para que una expresión se considere promoción deliberada del odio o del antisemitismo. A lo que añadió que se han presentado pocos cargos sobre el tema.
Según Macfarlane, eliminar las exenciones religiosas de la ley no impedirá que la gente cite pasajes de la Biblia u otros textos en general.
“Es casi seguro que un individuo tendría que incorporar un discurso extremo e incendiario adicional en su expresión para incumplir la ley, con o sin las exenciones”, dijo él.
Nuestro veredicto
Una publicación en TikTok dice que, “en Canadá quieren pasar una ley llamada C-367 donde las personas que son cristianas o practican cierta religión pueden ir preso”.
Pero el proyecto de ley no menciona el cristianismo ni busca prohibir ninguna religión. En respuesta a la retórica antisemita durante la guerra entre Israel y Hamás, su autor propuso enmendar el código penal canadiense relativo al discurso de odio para eliminar la religión como defensa para la incitación pública al odio o al antisemitismo. El proyecto no ha progresado en la Cámara de los Comunes y no está cerca de convertirse en ley.
Según los expertos, la simple cita de un texto religioso como la Biblia no daría lugar a cargos por discurso de odio, a menos que fuera acompañada de un lenguaje extremo y explícito.
Calificamos la afirmación como Falsa.
Una versión de este artículo fue escrito originalmente en inglés y traducido por Marta Campabadal.
Read a version of this article in English.
Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.
Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.
Recent social media posts claimed that migrants can use an app to get free flights to the U.S.
“Let’s see what is actually doing better under Biden?” the caption on a March 7 Instagram post says. The caption then lists several things, including, “300,000 illegal immigrants were able to use a simple app to get a free flight to our country along with the millions that were allowed to enter at our southern border!”
This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)
Entrepreneur Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump amplified similar claims in a social media post on X and a speech, respectively.
The claims appear to be based on a March 4 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates for reduced immigration and opposes a Biden administration parole program for migrants from certain countries.
The report says that the parole flights are creating security vulnerabilities at airports. But it doesn’t say migrants are receiving “free flights.”
The report’s author, Todd Bensman, said in a published follow-up statement that “re-reportings incorrectly said the government itself was ‘flying’ immigrants in, as though taxpayers were picking up the tab. As far as I know, that’s not true, nor have I ever reported anything other than that the program requires the migrants to pick up the tab.”
Bensman’s report says 320,000 people arrived in the U.S. through December 2023 through the parole program, which allows certain immigrants from four countries to live and work in the U.S. for up to two years. Official Customs and Border Protection data says that 327,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived in the U.S. from January 2023 through December 2023.
The Instagram post’s claim is wrong, though, saying that they used a “simple app to get a free flight” to the U.S.
Applicants complete a process that requires a security and background check, a U.S. sponsor and does not involve an app. People granted parole status through this program have temporary legal status in the U.S. They also do not receive free flights to the country; rather, they buy their own plane tickets, Nicole Hallet, a University of Chicago Law School professor, told PolitiFact.
And an app called CBP One is not used to apply for or receive parole. Program participants use the app to access information about their cases, get travel authorization and to complete a travel pre-screening to verify their identities.
People in the parole program came in the U.S. legally
In January 2023, the U.S. began accepting 30,000 people each month, collectively, from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, through a parole program. It lets people legally enter, live and work in the U.S. for two years. To qualify, migrants need a U.S. sponsor.
Although people paroled in are authorized to be in the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to terminate their parole if they violate U.S. laws. People who overstay a parole period also can be deported.
Through Jan. 31, 2024, more than 357,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole. Haiti had the most program participants, with 138,000 people arriving from that country, followed by 86,000 Venezuelans, 74,000 Cubans and 58,000 Nicaraguans. The U.S. grants parole based on “significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, posted March 11 on X that people who enter the U.S. through the parole program “are not ‘illegal aliens.’ They enter legally and have official permission to be here.” He was responding to a March 11 X post from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called the program’s participants “illegal aliens.”
Texas Republican officials sued the Biden administration claiming that the federal initiative is illegal. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit without ruling.
Our ruling
An Instagram post said that “300,000 illegal immigrants were able to use a simple app to get a free flight to our country.”
A Biden administration parole program allowed 327,000 migrants to legally enter the U.S. from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela from January 2023 through December 2023. They came in legally and are temporarily authorized to be in the country.
The app they use to track their case is not used to apply for or receive parole. Applying for the program requires a U.S. sponsor and background and security checks.
Once approved for the parole program, participants must pay for their own flights to the U.S.
We rate this claim False.
PolitiFact Staff Writer Maria Ramirez Uribe contributed to this report.
“Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued on live television about who owns TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance Ltd. Their heated exchange came a day after the U.S. House passed a bipartisan bill that could lead to the popular app being banned in the U.S.
The bill would require ByteDance, a China-based company, to sell TikTok, which has 170 million U.S. users, to a non-Chinese owner within six months or face a U.S. ban. The Senate would also need to approve the bill for it to move forward, though its fate there is uncertain. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.
During the March 14 exchange with Paul, Kilmeade said, “Who owns that company? ByteDance? ByteDance is owned by China.”
“No, it’s not,” Paul replied. “See that’s a lie. … You’re defaming the company.”
Paul said three times during the interview that 60% of ByteDance is owned by international investors, 20% is owned by its Chinese co-founders and 20% is owned by employees, including 7,000 Americans.
“It’s a complicated ownership, but it’s not owned by the government,” Paul said.
Kilmeade then asked who owns the TikTok app’s algorithm.”TikTok owns their own algorithm and it’s not in China,” Paul responded.
“Who owns TikTok?” Kilmeade countered. “ByteDance. And who owns ByteDance? The Chinese government.”
“No they don’t. See, you just told a lie, Brian,” Paul responded.
Watch the exchange between Kilmeade and Paul above. (YouTube)
According to TikTok, Paul is correct. An expert on China told PolitiFact that it’s hard to independently verify.
Kilmeade did not respond to a request for comment sent to a Fox News spokesperson.
PolitiFact has a partnership with TikTok to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content.
Information about TikTok’s ownership comes from the company itself
A TikTok spokesperson, in an email to PolitiFact, confirmed Paul’s numbers about its ownership structure. TikTok also uses the same figures that Paul cited on its webpages about its ownership.
The Associated Press reported that ByteDance is based in Beijing, but registered in the Cayman Islands. TikTok has global headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore and offices around the world, including in New York City, but TikTok says ByteDance does not have a single global headquarters.
Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, said that because ByteDance is a privately owned company, what is known about its ownership structure comes from the company itself.
“Its ownership is not possible to verify,” Thibaut said. “It has, however, had to provide disclosures in the past.”
She said ByteDance has provided disclosures to Washington, D.C., courts; to funders; and in Chinese government documents. Tibaut said those disclosures show that 60% of TikTok is owned by global investors, as TikTok told PolitiFact and Paul told Kilmeade.
The TikTok spokesperson also told PolitiFact that ByteDance’s five-person board of directors includes three Americans: Arthur Dantchik, co-founder of trading company Susquehanna International Group; William Ford, CEO of investing company General Atlantic; and Philippe Laffont, founder of hedge fund company Coatue Management.
In a March 11 letter, TikTok Vice President of Public Policy Michael Beckerman wrote to Reps. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., in response to a letter from the lawmakers, who said the Chinese government controlled ByteDance. Both Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi serve on the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
“TikTok is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government,” Beckerman wrote. “The ultimate parent company of TikTok Inc. is ByteDance Ltd., a privately-owned holding company established in the Cayman Islands. ByteDance Ltd. is majority owned by investors around the world, and the rest of the shares are owned by the founding team and employees around the world.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, ByteDance agreed in 2021 to allow the Chinese government to take a 1% ownership stake known as a “golden share” at one of its China-based subsidiaries, Beijing Douyin Information Service Co., which runs Douyin, an app available in China that’s similar to TikTok. (TikTok is not available in mainland China.) China is increasingly taking “golden shares” at China-based companies, giving the government board seats, voting power and a say in business decisions, the Journal reported.
Thibaut also said that the government-owned China Internet Investment Fund has a 1% share in Douyin, and China’s Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission has a board member on Douyin. That has raised suspicions ByteDance would allow China to have influence over the company’s operations, but we don’t know a lot about how or if the Chinese Communist Party uses its share to control company decisions, Thibaut said.
TikTok called the Chinese government’s 1% share in Douyin a “common arrangement” under Chinese law. It has no bearing on ByteDance’s global operations, including TikTok, it said.
Could China influence TikTok if it doesn’t have ownership?
Some legislators and U.S. officials have raised concerns that Chinese national security laws could require ByteDance to turn over TikTok data about American users to the Chinese government.
President Joe Biden in December 2022 signed a law barring federal employees from using TikTok on government-owned devices, with limited exceptions. States, local governments and universities have instituted similar TikTok bans on devices they own.
There have been previous issues, such as when ByteDance employees accessed data of Forbes journalists in 2022 and used it to track their movements. There was no evidence that China’s government compelled ByteDance employees to access the data to discover who was leaking information to the press about ByteDance’s links to China, Forbes reported.
In March 11 testimony before a Senate committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray said TikTok’s “parent company is for all intents and purposes beholden to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party).”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked if because ByteDance owns TikTok’s algorithm, regardless of where TikTok’s user data is stored, the Chinese government could ask ByteDance for the U.S. user data used to make the algorithm work, to which Wray said, “That’s my understanding.”
Exchange between Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and FBI Director Christopher Wray about TikTok. (CBS News, YouTube)
Thibaut said “we cannot know” whether the Chinese government could force ByteDance to provide it with U.S. TikTok user data.
In a February report about TikTok, Thibaut and two colleagues wrote that “if ByteDance or TikTok executives were to refuse an order directing them to allow Chinese intelligence agencies to use TikTok for ‘national intelligence efforts,’ these executives would likely face punishment.”
TikTok denies that China could force ByteDance to turn over U.S. user data. Beckerman’s letter addressed some of those concerns, saying that since January 2023, new U.S. TikTok data has been stored in the Oracle Cloud in the U.S. and controlled by TikTok’s U.S. subsidiary, U.S. Data Security. Only the Data Security team employees can access U.S. user data, it said. There are limited exceptions for legal and compliance reasons, which does not include adhering to China’s national security law, it said.
The company’s U.S. data-storing plan is known as Project Texas and began in 2022 as a way to assure U.S. users their data was secure.
In March 2023 testimony before a House committee, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, who is a native of Singapore, told legislators, “ByteDance is not an agent of China or any other country” and that under the Project Texas structure, there is no way for China’s government to compel access to U.S. users’ data.
Our ruling
Kilmeade said that the Chinese government “owns” TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance Ltd.
Information on ByteDance, a privately owned company, comes from TikTok and is difficult to independently verify. TikTok said 60% of ByteDance is owned by global investors, including U.S.-based investors, 20% by its Chinese co-founders and 20% by its employees, including thousands in the U.S. The company’s vice president has attested to that structure in a letter to Congress.
An expert also told us that TikTok has included the same global investor ownership percentage in disclosures to Washington, D.C., courts; funders; and in Chinese government documents.
China holds a 1% ownership stake in one of ByteDance’s China-based subsidiaries, Beijing Douyin Information Service Co., which runs an app in China similar to TikTok.
Although many U.S. officials are concerned that China could exert influence over ByteDance, and thus over TikTok, available evidence does not support the claim that ByteDance is owned by the Chinese government. Kilmeade also offered no evidence to support his statement.
In the absence of evidence supporting the claim, we rate it False.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.
Quick Take
The Ku Klux Klan caused a divisive Democratic National Convention in 1924 but failed to nominate its preferred candidate. A social media post shows a photo of a Klan march to falsely claim it depicts Democratic delegates at the convention in New York. But the photo is from a Klan funeral march later that year in Wisconsin.
Full Story
Democrats and Republicans have criticized each other for years with claims about ties to or support for the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, as we’ve previously written.
Historians say the Klan — which was founded after the Civil War and had a resurgence in the 1920s — has sought to achieve power through both parties. The organization ignited a particularly divisive Democratic National Convention in July 1924 in New York City, when the Klan-backed candidate failed to capture the party’s nomination.
A century later, amid another election season, a social media post mislabels an archival photo to misleadingly portray the participants at that Democratic convention.
An Instagram post on March 13 shows a march of Ku Klux Klan members in their white hoods and robes, with text that claims it is an “AUTHENTIC PHOTO OF THE 1924 NATIONAL DEMOCRAT CONVENTION.” The text on the photo also says, “MAKE SENSE NOW?”
The post has received more than 9,200 likes. One commenter wrote, in part: “The Democrats have NEVER voted in the history of America to make life easier for blacks. Only the Republicans have done that.”
But Linda Gordon, a history professor at New York University, told us in an email that the image in the Instagram post “is not a photo of the [D]emocratic convention” of 1924.
Rather, the photo is from the archive of the Wisconsin Historical Society and actually shows Klan members in December 1924, in Madison, Wisconsin, said Gordon, the author of “The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition.”
The Wisconsin archive describes the photo as “Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing iconic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger.”
Reuters debunked similar posts in 2020 and noted that the false description of the photo has circulated on social media since 2015.
Gordon told Reuters that the Klan’s efforts to influence politics in the 1920s was “pretty much equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.”
‘A Powerful Force’ in Both Parties
Felix Harcourt, associate professor of history at Austin College in Texas, told us in an email that the Klan was “a powerful force” in the Democratic Party in the 1920s and at the 1924 convention, where there was also strong opposition to the Klan.
“The Klan lobbied furiously to prevent the party from endorsing a platform plank that would condemn the group by name. The organization’s leaders played an influential role in denying Al Smith, the Catholic governor of New York, the Democratic nomination during the contested convention,” said Harcourt, whose research focuses on the Klan’s political power.
The effort to include a platform statement condemning the Klan at the Democratic convention failed. But the Klan’s preferred candidate, William G. McAdoo, did not capture the nomination, which went to John C. Davis on the 103rd ballot.
“At the same time, the Klan was highly opportunistic, with little partisan attachment beyond what served the organization and its bigoted goals,” Harcourt said. “So, the Klan wasn’t just a powerful force in the Democratic Party — it was a powerful force in politics more broadly. It was lobbying Democratic leaders at their 1924 convention. It was also lobbying leaders during the Republican convention in 1924, albeit in a less visible way since the nomination wasn’t really contested and there was no similar effort to put forward a plank denouncing the Klan by name.”
“Eventually, almost everyone running in the presidential election that year denounced the Klan by name, with the exception of Calvin Coolidge, who farmed the responsibility out to his vice presidential nominee, Charles Dawes. And the Klan’s national leadership in turn backed (in a limited way) Coolidge,” Harcourt said.
Coolidge, the Republican incumbent, won reelection in 1924.
“The Klan’s national leadership then very vocally and actively backed Republican Herbert Hoover against Democrat Al Smith in 1928,” Harcourt said. Hoover easily defeated Smith.
In recent years, Harcourt also said, “that opportunism — of the Klan and of the broad panoply of white nationalist groups that have come to largely replace the Klan — has often remained in place. The most prominent example, of course, is David Duke, who has run for office as both a Democrat and a Republican and who has endorsed both Democratic and Republican politicians.”
Sources
Britannica. “United States presidential election of 1924.” Accessed 15 Mar 2024.
Farley, Robert. “Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists.” FactCheck.org. 11 Feb 2020.
Fichera, Angelo. “Anti-Biden Ad Misleads on Race Claims.” FactCheck.org. 23 Jul 2020.
Fichera, Angelo. “Image Altered to Show KKK Members with Trump Sign.” 3 Mar 2020.
Gordon, Linda. Professor emerita of history, New York University. Email to FactCheck.org. 14 Mar 2024.
Gordon, Linda. “The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition.” W.W. Norton. October 2017.
Hamilton, David. “Herbert Hoover: Campaigns and Elections.” University of Virginia, Miller Center. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.
Harcourt, Felix. Associate professor of history, Austin College. Email to FactCheck.org. 14 Mar 2024.
National Geographic. “The Ku Klux Klan.” education.nationalgeographic.org. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.
Pietrusza, David. “The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.” Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.
Human trafficking researcher Monica Petersen’s 2016 death in Haiti sparked a conspiracy theory that she was killed for investigating sex trafficking allegations involving former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
Seven years later, the debunked claim continues to spread online.
An Instagram post shows a split-screen graphic of Petersen and Hillary Clinton, with text that reads, “We will not forget about hero Monica Petersen who was ‘suicided’ while in Haiti investigating the Clintons for child trafficking,” implying that her death was made to look like a suicide.
This post was flagged as part of Meta’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 claim is tied to a larger conspiracy theory called “pizzagate,” which alleges that Hilary Clinton and her campaign manager were running a child sex trafficking ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria. PolitiFact has repeatedly debunked “pizzagate” claims.
The University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies, which housed the Human Trafficking Center, posted an obituary for Peterson on Facebook on Nov. 15, 2016. The post said she died Nov. 13, 2016, in Haiti after leaving her position as a research assistant at the Human Trafficking Center in June 2016.
The Human Trafficking Center, which closed in June 2021, also made a December 2016 Facebook post sharing a Washington Post fact-check in which Claude d’Estrée, the Human Trafficking Center’s then-director, told the Post that Petersen was not in Haiti to research human trafficking or investigate the Clintons.
“I would like to bring this chapter of my dear friend and colleague’s life to a close. This does not mean we should end our vigilance around fake news and its very real consequences,” d’Estrée said.
D’Estreé told The Washington Post in 2016 that Petersen had been to Haiti many times before she died there at age 32, adding that she had been teaching and was exploring setting up a nongovernmental organization. D’Estreé said the death was a suicide but said the circumstances were unclear.
Some online conspiracy theorists pointed to a 2015 Facebook post by Petersen in which she said she was traveling to Haiti to do field work for three weeks. The post does not say Petersen planned to investigate the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation while she was there.
Other online conspiracy theorists cited a blog post Petersen had shared on Facebook that criticized the Clinton Foundation’s philanthropy in Haiti. The theorists said that Petersen wrote the post and that it’s evidence she was assassinated for investigating the foundation. Petersen did not write the article; a woman named Chantal Laurent did.
We rate the claim that Petersen was assassinated in Haiti while investigating the Clintons’ child trafficking Pants on Fire!
Q: Is one day isolation sufficient to stop forward transmission of COVID-19?
A: People with COVID-19 could potentially transmit it to others well beyond a day after developing symptoms or testing positive. New guidance from the CDC advises people to isolate until they have been fever-free and with symptoms improving for at least 24 hours, and then take precautions for five days, which covers the period when “most people are still infectious.”
FULL ANSWER
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 1 updated its guidance on preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, consolidating advice on a range of common respiratory illnesses including COVID-19, flu and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.
Since December 2021, the agency had recommended individuals isolate for at least five days after developing symptoms of COVID-19, or after a positive test if asymptomatic. After five days, the agency recommended various symptom-based criteria for leaving isolation combined with additional continued precautions, such as masking.
The new guidance drops the standard minimum of five days of isolation in favor of a symptom-based approach. The agency advises people to stay home and away from others when they are sick with a respiratory virus. People can cease isolation if, over a period of 24 hours, their overall symptoms have been improving and they have been fever-free without using fever-reducing medications.
Many people have had questions about what the new guidance means for people who have COVID-19. Some, like our reader, have referred to the idea that the guidance means only one day of isolation is needed. “do you agree with Biden that one day isolation for covid is fine and dandy??” asked one person on X, formerly known as Twitter.
But that’s not what Biden or the CDC is recommending.
“It’s not saying isolate for 24 hours,” epidemiologist Ronit Dalmat, a research scientist at the University of Washington, told us, referring to the CDC guidance. “It’s saying if you have a fever, absolutely stay home” until it has been gone for 24 hours, and also stay home until other symptoms are improving.
Nor does the CDC say people are guaranteed not to spread COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses after their symptoms have improved. “Keep in mind that you may still be able to spread the virus that made you sick, even if you are feeling better,” the guidance says. “You are likely to be less contagious at this time, depending on factors like how long you were sick or how sick you were.”
The guidance recommends continuing to take precautions for five days after resuming normal activities. These include physical distancing, testing, improving air quality, using good hygiene and wearing a well-fitting mask, such as an N95 or KN95.
“The total number of days of precautions when sick, that is, a period of staying home and away from others plus 5 days of additional actions, covers the period during which most people are still infectious,” the CDC wrote in an FAQ.
“That whole period could be quite a while,” Dalmat said. “That could be 10 days for some people.”
The CDC said in background materials accompanying the new guidance that it looked at data from countries and states that had adopted similar policies for COVID-19 isolation and had not seen “clear increases in community transmission or hospitalization rates.”
“The updated guidance on steps to prevent spread when you are sick particularly reflects the key reality that many people with respiratory virus symptoms do not know the specific virus they are infected with,” the CDC said. The agency noted that its survey data indicated less than half of people with cold or cough symptoms would take an at-home COVID-19 test.
Some on social media have misinterpreted the guidance as an admission that it was always reasonable to liken COVID-19 to the flu, as was done early in the pandemic despite the marked difference in the diseases’ severity.
But the new CDC guidance acknowledges the continued seriousness of COVID-19 while also detailing the ways in which treatments, vaccines and population immunity have improved outcomes for people with the disease.
“COVID-19 remains a greater cause of severe illness and death than other respiratory viruses, but the differences between these rates are much smaller than they were earlier in the pandemic,” the CDC said. The agency explained that the risks are reduced due to the availability of COVID-19 treatments and population immunity to the virus, both from vaccination and prior infection. The agency also said that long COVID remains a risk, although the prevalence appears to be falling.
The Science on COVID-19 Transmission
Whether someone transmits COVID-19 depends on multiple factors. These include a person’s infectious viral load, but also the susceptibility of the people the infected person encounters and the precautions taken.
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to how long a particular individual will shed infectious virus and how much they will shed. “Everybody has a slightly different ability to control the amount of virus in their system, which is a part of what makes the virus shed,” Dalmat said. Variation in how people’s bodies fight a virus affects “how much virus you are putting in the world that is infectious.”
There’s evidence that a relatively small number of people who shed particularly high levels of the virus over the course of their infections have been responsible for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases, and many people with COVID-19 do not infect others.
However, according to the CDC, the data on the typical overall length of shedding has not significantly changed, even as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — have arisen. “Even as the SARS-CoV-2 virus has continued to evolve, the duration of shedding infectious virus has remained relatively consistent, with most individuals no longer infectious after 8-10 days,” the agency said.
The CDC accompanied this statement with a figure showing data collected by the Respiratory Virus Transmission Network from five U.S. sites between November 2022 and May 2023 (see below). One line on the graph (light blue) shows how often researchers were able to isolate and grow — or culture — virus from people with COVID-19.
Data from the Respiratory Virus Transmission Network on people who tested positive for COVID-19 between November 2022 and May 2023. Source: CDC; available on CDC website
Trying to culture the virus that causes COVID-19 from a respiratory sample — a laborious process used in research — indicates whether someone is carrying infectious virus. The figure shows that the proportion of people with culturable virus began to increase two days before symptoms begin, or before a positive test for those who were asymptomatic, peaking around one to two days after symptom onset. After that, the rate began falling, with around one-third of people having culturable virus at day five. By day 10, the percentage had dropped to around 10%.
A different study, published in 2023 in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, combined data from multiple studies done in people diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2021 and 2022. The average duration of shedding of culturable virus was just over five days from symptom onset or first positive PCR test, whichever came first.
Another metric for assessing infectiousness in people with COVID-19 is viral load, often measured as the amount of viral materials, such as RNA or proteins, found in a respiratory sample. A 2023 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that median viral load for people diagnosed with COVID-19 peaked around three or four days after symptoms started. The study assessed people seeking testing for respiratory infections between April 2022 and April 2023.
Someone who is shedding infectious virus may or may not transmit it to others. One factor is that the average person is less susceptible to infection today than they were early in the pandemic, Dalmat said.
“Even if the person is producing the exact same amount of virus today as they could have three years ago, the people on the other end on average are less likely to get infected,” Dalmat said, explaining that today more than 98% of the population has had some exposure to COVID-19 itself, COVID-19 vaccines or both.
When people do get infected, the cases tend to be less severe.“Among the people who get infected with COVID these days, on average it is much rarer that it turns into a very serious illness,” Dalmat said, while also acknowledging that a lot of individuals “are still very vulnerable.” People at elevated risk for severe disease include those who are elderly or immune compromised.
While the CDC guidance harmonizes suggested precautions for COVID-19 and other common respiratory viruses, there are differences in the details of how COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses are spread.
The new guidance is meant to be a general rule of thumb but does not apply to health care settings or cases where there is an outbreak of a disease that requires special instructions, the CDC said. The CDC also said the agency is working on specific guidance for schools, which should be available prior to the 2024/2025 school year.
Masks, Tests and Other Precautions
Isolating from other people when sick is a key way to reduce one’s risk of spreading COVID-19. But the CDC guidance lists additional ways to reduce the chances of spreading a respiratory illness.
Masks can help prevent the wearer from spreading a respiratory virus. They can also protect others from inhaling a virus, particularly well-fitting masks such as N95 or KN95 respirators, the guidance says. Individuals can take measures to improve their hygiene and the air quality in their surroundings and maintain physical distance from others, such as by avoiding crowded spaces.
The CDC still recommends testing to help high-risk people who are sick determine whether to seek treatment for a specific virus. For instance, someone with COVID-19 may benefit from receiving Paxlovid within five days of when their symptoms start. The guidance also lists tests as a tool that can help people decide when they need to take precautions to avoid spreading disease.
Art_Photo / stock.adobe.com
At-home rapid antigen tests can be helpful for people who are recovering from COVID-19 and want to see if they still have infectious virus, Dalmat said. In their research, she and her colleagues found that among people who tested positive for COVID-19 on a rapid antigen test, subsequent negative antigen test results were “very, very highly correlated to whether you had infectious virus or not,” she said. That means people with COVID-19 who start to test negative on rapid antigen tests as they get better likely are no longer at risk of infecting others.
However, the CDC cautions that rapid antigen tests early in the course of a person’s infection often miss COVID-19. People who are sick should be taking precautions regardless of test results, Dalmat said. “They shouldn’t test and have a negative test be the end of it,” she said.
The authors of the Clinical Infectious Diseases study, which measured viral loads over the course of infection, wrote that “our data in combination with others’ suggest that symptomatic individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR currently may not reliably test positive on a rapid antigen test until the third, fourth, or even fifth day of symptoms.”
The CDC guidance says people can end isolation when they have been fever-free and their symptoms have been improving for at least 24 hours. Dalmat cautioned that the definition of improving symptoms is somewhat ambiguous.
“Symptoms improving can mean different things to different people,” Dalmat said, adding that people should make sure their symptoms are truly getting better. “If your symptoms are not really improving – not kind of plateauing but really improving — you should continue to stay home and continue to take whatever measures you are taking in your household.”
Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Sources
Branswell, Helen. “CDC Eases Isolation Guidance for Covid and Other Respiratory Illnesses.” STAT. 1 Mar 2024.
“Preventing Spread of Respiratory Viruses When You’re Sick.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“CDC’s Updated Respiratory Virus Guidance: What to Do When You Are Sick.” CDC website. 1 Mar 2024.
“CDC Updates and Shortens Recommended Isolation and Quarantine Period for General Population.” CDC website. 27 Dec 2021.
“Isolation and Precautions for People with COVID-19.” CDC website. Updated 11 Mar 2023.
Cali Dreaming NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc). “Prof Hotez: do you agree with Biden that one day isolation for covid is fine and dandy??” X. 2 Mar 2024.
“Background for CDC’s Updated Respiratory Virus Guidance.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
Matt Kim (@mattattack009). “Zero Accountability.” Instagram. 4 Mar 2024.
DiedSuddenly (@DiedSuddenly_). “Turns out everything they told you about Covid was a lie. Of course they knew this 3 years ago, and they’ll show zero remorse for what they have done.” X. 2 Mar 2024.
Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres). “… and then one day, four years later on a Friday afternoon when no one was looking, the CDC admitted that the great conspiracy theory about Covid was true.” X. 1 Mar 2024.
Rieder, Rem. “Trump’s Deceptive Comparison of the Coronavirus to the Flu.” FactCheck.org. 9 Sep 2020.
“How is COVID-19 transmitted?” FactCheck.org. Updated 11 Feb 2022.
Puhach, Olha et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Shedding Kinetics.” Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2 Dec 2022.
Wu, Yu et al. “Duration of Viable Virus Shedding and Polymerase Chain Reaction Positivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the Upper Respiratory Tract: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 18 Feb 2023.
Frediani, Jennifer K. et al. “The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs.” Clinical Infectious Diseases. 28 Sep 2023.
Cevik, Muge and Kalil, Andre C. “Omicron Variant: Assessing the Duration of Viral Shedding and Its Implications.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 25 Nov 2022.
“Risk Factors for Severe Illness from Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
Wu, Katherine J. “Why Are We Still Flu-Ifying COVID?” The Atlantic. 28 Feb 2024.
“Masks and Respiratory Viruses Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“Hygiene and Respiratory Viruses Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“Taking Steps for Cleaner Air for Respiratory Virus Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“About Physical Distancing and Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“Preventing Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
“COVID-19 Treatments and Medications.” CDC website. Updated 15 Mar 2024.
“Testing and Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.
Drain, Paul K. et al. “Duration of Viral Infectiousness and Correlation with Symptoms and Diagnostic Testing in Non-Hospitalized Adults during Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Journal of Clinical Virology. 3 Mar 2023.
