Category: Fact Check

  • Fact Check: No, Michael Moore is not supporting Trump’s 2024 candidacy

    Michael Moore, a liberal filmmaker, did not announce his support for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. A 2016 video of Moore telling Donald Trump supporters in Ohio not to vote for Trump has been misleadingly edited. 

    In a Instagram reel from January with text that reads “Michael Moore Supporting Trump,” Moore speaks to an audience and says, “Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting and it’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump.” 

    Moore also says that  disenchanted voters will Nov. 8 “put a big f- – – ing yes on the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system — that has ruined their lives — Donald J. Trump.” The video clip ends with Moore saying, “Trump’s election is going to be the biggest ‘f— you’ ever recorded in human history and it will feel good.” 

    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 video was taken from Moore’s 2016 documentary, “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” during which he delivered a stand-up special in Ohio to persuade Trump supporters not to vote for Trump. 

    Trump reposted the edited version of the video to his Truth Social account in April with no caption. 

    But a longer version of the video shows Moore saying that Trump voters will regret their decision. 

    “So, when the rightfully angry people of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, find out after a few months in office that President Trump wasn’t going to do a damn thing for them, it’ll be too late to do anything about it,” Moore said. “But I get it, you wanted to send a message. You had righteous anger, and justifiable anger. Well, message sent. Good night America, you’ve just elected the last president of the United States.” 

    An Feb. 27 article by The Nation says Moore has supported Democratic candidates since 2002. On an episode of his podcast “Rumble with Michael Moore” that aired Feb. 27, Moore said he voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and encouraged Michigan voters to cast their ballots for “uncommitted” in the 2024 Michigan presidential primary to protest the Biden administration’s support of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. 

    In the podcast, Moore emphasizes that he doesn’t support reelecting Trump in 2024.

    “President Biden, this is what’s really upsetting us, is that you are risking putting Trump back in the White House,” Moore says. “What is wrong with you?”

    We rate the claim that Moore is supporting Trump in the 2024 election False. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: For the most part, the US pays double for prescriptions compared with other countries, as Biden says

    It’s well documented that Americans pay high prices for health care. But do they pay double or more for prescriptions compared with the rest of the world? That’s what President Joe Biden said.

    “If I put you on Air Force One with me, and you have a prescription — no matter what it’s for, minor or major — and I flew you to Toronto or flew to London or flew you to Brazil or flew you anywhere in the world, I can get you that prescription filled for somewhere between 40 to 60% less than it costs here,” Biden said Feb. 22 at a campaign reception in California.

    He followed up by touting provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to lower drug prices, including capping insulin at $35 a month for Medicare enrollees and limiting older Americans’ out-of-pocket prescription spending to $2,000 per year starting in 2025. The law also authorized Medicare to negotiate prices directly with drug companies for 10 prescription drugs, a list that will expand over time.

    Research has consistently found that overall, U.S. prescription drug prices are significantly higher, sometimes two to four times, compared with prices in other high-income industrialized countries. Unbranded generic drugs are an outlier and are typically cheaper in the U.S. compared with other countries. (Branded generics, a different category, are close to breaking even with other countries). 

    However, factors including country-specific pricing, confidential rebates and other discounts can obscure actual prices, making comparisons harder.

    “The available evidence suggests that the U.S., on average, has higher prices for prescription drugs and that’s particularly true for brand-name drugs,” said Cynthia Cox, director of the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, which tracks trends and issues affecting U.S. health care system performance. “Americans also have relatively high out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs, compared to people in similarly large and wealthy nations.”

    Andrew Mulcahy, a senior health economist at Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research organization, agreed that Biden’s overall sentiment is on target but ignores some complexities.

    He said price comparisons his team has conducted reflect the amounts wholesalers pay manufacturers for their drugs, which can differ sharply from prices consumers and their drug plans  pay. 

    “In many of those other countries (patients) pay nothing,” Mulcahy said, “so I think that’s part of the complication here when we talk about prices, there are so many different drugs, prices and systems at work.” 

    What international drug pricing comparisons show

    A 2024 Rand study that Mulcahy led found that across all drugs, U.S. prices were 2.78 times higher than prices in 33 other countries, based on 2022 data. The report evaluated most countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, a group of 38 advanced, industrialized nations.

    The gap was largest for brand-name drugs, the study found, with U.S. prices averaging 4.22 times higher than those in the studied nations. After adjusting for manufacturer-funded rebates, U.S. prices for brand-name drugs remained more than three higher than prices in other countries. on the different price adjustments.

    The U.S. pays less for one prescription category: unbranded, generic drugs, which are about 33% less than in other studied countries. These types of drugs account for about 90% of filled prescriptions in the U.S., yet make up only one-fifth of overall prescription spending.

    “The analysis used manufacturer gross prices for drugs because net prices — the amounts ultimately retained by manufacturers after negotiated rebates and other discounts are applied — are not systematically available,” a news release about the report said. 

    People with health insurance pay prices that include both markups and discounts negotiated with insurers. Uninsured people may pay a pharmacy’s “usual and customary” price — which tends to be higher than net prices paid by others— or a lower amount using a manufacturer discount program. But many of these adjustments are confidential, making it hard to quantify how they affect net prices.

    In 2021, the Government Accountability Office released an analysis of prices of 20 brand-name drugs in the U.S., Canada, Australia and France. The study found that retail prices were more than two to four times higher in the U.S.

    Like Rand, the agency adjusted for rebates and other price concessions for its U.S. estimate, but the other countries’ estimates reflected gross prices without potential discounts. 

    “As a result, the actual differences between U.S. prices and those of the other countries were likely larger than GAO estimates,” the report said.

    Another analysis by the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker that Cox co-authored compared the prices of seven brand-name drugs in the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and found that some U.S. prices were two to four times higher. For unbranded, generic drugs, the price gaps were smaller.

    “Despite the fact that the U.S. pays less for generic drugs and Americans appear to use more generic drugs than people in other countries, this did not offset the higher prices paid for brand-name drugs,” Cox said.

    The Peterson-KFF report, using 2019 OECD data, found that the U.S. spent about $1,126 per person on prescription medicines, higher than any peer nation, with comparable countries spending $552. This includes spending by insurers and out-of-pocket consumer costs.

    “Private and public insurance programs cover a similar share of prescription medicine spending in the U.S. compared to peer nations,” the report noted. “However, the steep costs in the U.S. still contribute to high U.S. healthcare spending and are passed onto Americans in the form of higher premiums and taxpayer-funded public programs.”

    Why is the U.S. such an outlier on drug pricing?

    The U.S. has much more limited price negotiation with drug manufacturers; other countries often rely on a single regulatory body to determine whether prices are acceptable and negotiate accordingly. Many nations conduct public cost-benefit analyses on new drugs, comparing them with others on the market. If those studies find the cost is too high, or the health benefit too low, they’ll reject the drug application. Some countries also set pricing controls

    In the U.S., negotiations involve smaller government programs and thousands of separate private health plans, lowering the bargaining power.

    “It’s complicated. Everything in health care costs more here, not just (prescriptions),” said Joseph Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, in an email interview. Although the government’s new Medicare drug negotiation is the U.S.’ first attempt to set drug prices, Antos noted that U.S. drug price negotiation still doesn’t operate as price-setting for prescriptions in Europe does because it’s limited to a few drugs and doesn’t apply to Medicaid or private insurance.

    Drug patents and exclusivity is another factor keeping U.S. drug prices higher, experts said, as U.S. pharmaceutical companies have amassed patents to prevent generic competitors from bringing cheaper versions to market.

    Drug companies have also argued that high prices reflect research and development costs. Without higher consumer prices to offset research costs, the companies say, new medicines wouldn’t be discovered or brought to market. But recent studies haven’t supported that.  

    One 2023 study found that from 1999 to 2018, the world’s largest 15 biopharmaceutical companies spent more on selling and general and administrative activities, which include marketing, than on research and development. The study also said most new medicines developed during this period offered little to no clinical benefit over existing treatments.

    Our ruling

    Biden said, if you went “anywhere in the world,” you could get a prescription filled for 40% to 60% less than it costs in the U.S.

    He exaggerated by saying “anywhere in the world,” but for comparable high-income, industrialized countries, he’s mostly on target.

    Research has consistently shown that Americans pay significantly higher prices overall for prescription medication, averaging between two times to four times higher, depending on the study. The U.S. pays less for unbranded, generic drugs, but those lower prices don’t offset the higher prices paid for brand-name drugs, researchers said.

    Factors including country-specific pricing, confidential rebates and other discounts, also obscure true consumer prices, making comparisons difficult.

    Biden’s statement is accurate but needs clarification and additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

    PolitiFact Copy Chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report. 

    RELATED: Yes, the price of an inhaler in the US is massively higher than overseas cost 



    Source

  • Fact Check: This photo doesn’t show the Smokehouse Creek fire in Texas; it was posted in 2017

    The Smokehouse Creek Fire that broke out in Texas on Feb. 26 has burned through an estimated 850,000 acres, becoming Texas’ second-largest wildfire ever recorded, according to the Texas A&M Forest Service.

    Social media users provided updates and information on where to donate money or supplies. A Feb. 27 Facebook post attached two photos showing land covered in fire and smoke.

    “Friends!! Our TEXAS PANHANDLE is on fire!! They’re evacuating parts of it as we speak,” the caption read.

    (Screenshot from Facebook)

    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.)

    But the first photo doesn’t show the Smokehouse Creek fire; it was first posted in 2017.

    A reverse-image search showed that the photo was used in a Texas Monthly feature published in August 2017 about three people who died in a fire in Texas’ Gray County in March 2017.

    The photo was posted seven years ago; it does not show the current Smokehouse Creek fire. We rate that claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Donald Trump, not his lookalike, promoted the COVID-19 vaccine several times

    A woman fielding a question about former President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 vaccine promotion claimed that his past remarks may not have actually come from him.

    An Instagram clip posted Feb. 28 showed a woman being asked, “You have mentioned in the past that Donald Trump was here to help humanity. If that’s true, then why did he promote the COVID vaccines and tell everyone to get it?” 

    She responded, “He did not. That was a, that was a lookalike that was doing that promotion for the, for the deep state.”

    (Screenshot from Instagram)

    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.)

    Trump promoted the COVID-19 vaccine several times. He did so on multiple platforms, some in front of audiences. There’s no evidence a lookalike made his public remarks.

    The Washington Post compiled instances when Trump promoted the COVID-19 vaccine. He also said multiple times that he had taken the vaccine and told people in interviews, rallies, public events and press statements to get vaccinated. Here are some of his quotes:

    • On Fox News, March 16, 2021: “It works incredibly well. 95%, maybe even more than that … I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also. But it’s a great vaccine, it’s a safe vaccine, and it’s something that works.”

    • At the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on July 24, 2021, in Phoenix, (4:15:06-4:15:21): “How about the vaccine? I came up with the vaccine. They said it would take three to five years, gonna save the world. I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100%. But just so you understand, but it was a great achievement.”

    • At an Aug, 21, 2021, rally in Cullman, Alabama, (36:48-36:55): “You know what, I believe totally in your freedoms, I do. You gotta do what you have to do. But I recommend take the vaccines. I did it, it’s good. Take the vaccines.”

    • At Bill O’Reilly “History Tour” event Dec. 19, 2021, in Dallas: “If you don’t wanna take it you shouldn’t be forced to take it. No mandates. But take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives.” O’Reilly said, “Both the President and I are vaxxed, and did you get the booster?” Trump said, “Yes.”

    There’s plenty of documentation that Trump promoted and recommended the COVID-19 vaccine. We rate the claim that it was Trump’s lookalike that did so Pants on Fire!



    Source

  • Fact Check: Rothschild conspiracy theory resurfaces, but family doesn’t control global financial system

    The Rothschild family has been at the center of conspiracy theories about its wealth and influence for centuries. The latest example followed Jacob Rothschild’s Feb. 26 death at age 87.

    “The Rothschilds were behind the fed, and they now control the global financial system,” said the caption on a Feb. 26 Instagram post that included a photo of Jacob Rothschild. The post was later edited to remove that language. 

    This Instagram 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 Federal Reserve, in Washington, D.C., is controlled by a Board of Governors that the U.S. president nominates and the U.S. Senate confirms.

    Conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family date to 1846 in Paris and have deep antisemitic roots. The family was targeted that year in an anonymously written pamphlet that falsely claimed that Nathan Rothschild, the family patriarch, Mayer Rothschild’s son, knew the Battle of Waterloo’s outcome in advance. The pamphlet was published 30 years after the battle and 10 years after Nathan Rothschild’s death, but its message has circulated ever since.  

    “There is a massive industry of Rothschild conspiracy theories, some of which are just invented on the spot, and others utilize tropes like Jews being cheap, Jews being greedy, Jews being clannish, keeping their money to themselves,” historian Mike Rothschild (no relation to the Rothschild banking family), who has written a book about the history of the theories, said in a 2023 interview with Time magazine. 

    The Rothschilds have been wrongly blamed for everything from starting wars to sinking the Titanic and assassinating U.S. presidents. Various iterations of the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds control global finances have been repeatedly debunked.

    The Rothschild family started in banking in Frankfurt, Germany, and the family’s wealth exploded after it financed the British army in the Napoleonic Wars, from 1799 to 1815. The family later invested in railroads, mining and real estate.

    Although the Rothschilds historically made money in finance and banking, the family’s fortune is now distributed across businesses in several industries.

    Jacob Rothschild was born in Berkshire, England, and oversaw a series of business ventures beyond banking during his career, including a wealth management company, J. Rothschild Assurance Group, now known as St. James’s Place. 

    The claim is not supported by evidence and is an antisemitic trope. 

    We rate the claim that the Rothschilds were behind the Federal Reserve, and they now control the global financial system, Pants on Fire!



    Source

  • Fact Check: The context behind Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s dueling immigration speeches at the Texas border

    The two 2024 presidential election front-runners traveled to Texas on Feb. 29 to deliver vastly different messages about a key election issue: immigration. 

    Former President Donald Trump stoked fear about the people crossing the southern U.S. border, citing recent high-profile criminal cases in which authorities charged immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally. President Joe Biden blamed Republicans for sidelining a Senate immigration bill he said would have given his administration the resources and powers needed to reduce illegal immigration. 

    Speaking at Eagle Pass, Texas, the epicenter of a feud between the state and the federal government, Trump joined Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Border Patrol union’s leader and Texas National Guard members. 

    A few minutes after Trump spoke and about 300 miles south, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, and Border Patrol agents joined Biden as he spoke in Brownsville, Texas.

    Trump spent the hours before his speech blasting Biden’s immigration policies over social media and in a Daily Mail article, and positioning himself as the only person able to “stop Biden’s illegal immigrant invasion.”

    At the end of his speech, Biden asked Trump to join him in getting Congress to pass the Senate border security bill.   

    “Instead of playing politics with the issue, why don’t we just get together and get it done,” Biden said. 

    PolitiFact listened to both presidential candidates. Biden overstated the authority provided to him in the border security bill. Trump made broad and often unsubstantiated statements about the migrants entering the U.S. and his administration’s immigration successes. 

    Here’s the context behind some of their statements.

    President Joe Biden talks with the U.S. Border Patrol, as he looks over the southern border, Feb. 29, 2024, in Brownsville, Texas, along the Rio Grande. (AP)

    Biden overstates possible effect of emergency authority in border security bill

    The Senate bill “would also give me as president, or any of the next presidents, emergency authority to temporarily shut down the border between ports of entry.” — Biden in Brownsville

    The Senate proposal, which failed 49-50, sought to enable the executive branch to block people from seeking asylum in between ports of entry if illegal immigration encounters reached certain levels. 

    That doesn’t mean people would stop coming to U.S. borders. A public health policy to mitigate COVID-19’s spread that was in place from March 2020 to May 2023 also largely blocked people from seeking asylum, but border encounters rose.

    “There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s senior adviser for Immigration and border policy previously told PolitiFact. “We control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.”

    Under current immigration law, people on U.S. soil are allowed to seek asylum regardless of how they entered the country. The bill’s emergency authority tried to change that. But the government’s ability to quickly remove people from the U.S. would still hinge on its resources, and other countries’ willingness to take back immigrants. 

    “In short, there is no authority that Congress could pass that would allow for a ‘complete and total shutdown of the border,’” Brown told us in February. “That’s just not how borders work in any real sense. Especially not our border with Mexico.”

    Trump leaves out context on migrants and crime, exaggerates his administration’s success

    Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump talks with Maj. Gen. Thomas Suelzer, Adjutant General for the State of Texas, at Shelby Park during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Feb. 29, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas. (AP)

    The person charged with a Georgia nursing student’s murder “is an illegal alien migrant who was led into our country and released into our communities by ‘Crooked Joe’ Biden,” — Trump in Eagle Pass.

    Laken Riley, a 22-year old nursing student at the University of Georgia, was killed while on a run Feb. 22. Authorities charged Jose Ibarra with the murder. 

    Ibarra, a 26-year old from Venezuela, was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection when he illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in September 2022, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ibarra was paroled in, allowing him to be released into the U.S. to await further immigration proceedings.

    There is conflicting information on whether he was arrested in New York City. ICE told PolitiFact the New York Police Department arrested Ibarra on Aug. 31, 2023, and charged him with “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation.” ICE said the police released him before immigration authorities were able to issue a detainer request for him. But NYPD told PolitFact there were no arrests filed under the name “Jose Ibarra” in 2023. 

    Despite high-profile cases of crimes committed by, or charged to immigrants in the U.S. illegally, research shows that immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people. A 2023 Stanford University study found immigrants are 30% less likely to be incarcerated than people born in the U.S. Research published in 2024 by the libertarian Cato Institute found that in Texas, immigrants in the U.S. illegally have a lower homicide conviction rate than people born in the U.S.

    “We ended catch and release,” — Trump in Eagle Pass.

    This is misleading and doesn’t reflect what happened. Republicans often use the term “catch and release” to describe immigration authorities stopping immigrants at the border and releasing them so they can await their court hearings outside of federal custody. 

    Both Democratic and Republican administrations have followed this practice for decades, because there’s limited detention space and court rulings have capped how long someone can be detained. 

    In January 2017, Trump signed an executive order to end “catch and release.” But a few months later, his own attorney general testified to the Senate that the practice continued because of the long case backlog and an immigration judges shortage.

    “We built 571 miles of border wall, much more than I promised I’d build,” — Trump in Eagle Pass. 

    During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump promised to build a border wall along at least 1,000 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. southern border. He did not fulfill that promise.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection data says the Trump administration built barriers along 458 miles. But the majority of that construction replaced existing smaller, dilapidated barriers and did not add to the total miles of southern border barriers.

    The amount of new primary barriers added — 52 miles — is about 10 times less than Trump’s estimate. Primary barriers are the first impediment people encounter when they’re trying to cross the southern border with Mexico, they can block people who are walking or driving.

    RELATED: Key facts about immigration data: What it can and can’t tell us about border policies

    RELATED: How many miles of border wall did Donald Trump build? It depends on how it’s counted

    RELATED: All our fact-checks about immigration



    Source

  • Fact Check: No, Wisconsin secretary of state doesn’t have to countersign new laws for them to take effect

    Wisconsin has a new set of Legislative maps, and many politicians have spoken out about them; expressing excitement, questions and apprehension. 

    Sarah Godlewski took to social media to express her happiness, and to share a snapshot into her life as the secretary of state. 

    In a Feb. 21 X post, Godlewski said it was “one of her responsibilities” as secretary of state “to countersign acts passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers.” 

    “I’m excited to be signing 2023 Wisconsin Act 94, because it means fair maps in Wisconsin!” she continued. 

    Godlewski in her post insinuated that her signature is necessary to put a new law into action after it’s approved by the Legislature and the governor. 

    But is that true? Let’s take a closer look. 

    Signature not required

    When we asked Godlewski’s office for comment, Nate Schwantes, the chief of staff, sent back information from the Wisconsin  Constitution and the state statutes. 

    Schwantes also included a photo of the signature sheet for Senate Bill 488, which is signed by the Senate president, the Assembly speaker and the governor. At the bottom, there is also a line for Godlewski’s signature. 

    According to the section of the state’s constitution that addresses the duties of the secretary of state, the person who serves in the position “shall keep a fair record of the official acts of the legislature and executive department of the state, and shall, when required, lay the same and all matters relative thereto before either branch of the legislature.” 

    So, basically, the state constitution says the secretary keeps a record of official acts by the governor and the Legislature, and can present those acts if asked. No countersignature is mentioned.

    According to the section of the state statutes that addresses the duties of the secretary of state, there are several responsibilities, including recording executive acts, having custody of books and records, providing a biennial report, keeping enrolled laws, compiling original laws and resolutions, recording fees, and several more. 

    Another one of the duties is to “affix the great seal and countersign all commissions issued and other official acts done by the governor, the governor’s approbation of the laws excepted.”

    That portion of the statute is confusing, and it may be because the language dates back to before Wisconsin was even a state. But it doesn’t require Godlewski to countersign laws, Mike Gallagher of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau said in an email. 

    “The (secretary of state’s) countersignature of official acts of the governor dates back to Wisconsin’s territorial days and has served primarily as a means of document authentication, i.e. verification of the legitimacy of official documents, especially in an era when state government relied exclusively on physical documents,” Gallagher said. 

    He also noted that while yes, laws signed by the governor have included a signature block for the secretary of state since before Godlewski took office, she’s not actually required to sign on the line in order for a law to be functional. 

    “The (secretary of state) has no role in the process by which a law takes effect,” he said. “After having been passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the governor, a law becomes effective on the day after the day on which the law is required to be published by the Legislative Reference Bureau.”

    “That date of publication is the day after the governor signs the law. The (secretary of state) has no official role in this process, whether by countersigning the governor’s approval or otherwise.”

    The secretary of state’s office has gradually diminished over the years, making the role largely inconsequential, even though the person in the role is elected. In reality, the office has just a few small duties outlined in state law. 

    For Godlewski, this isn’t the first time she’s overstated her role as the secretary of state. Last year, she exaggerated her role in state elections, saying she wanted to use the office to help improve transparency and accountability in elections, and help local election officials and the Wisconsin Elections Commission. But those are not roles delegated to the secretary of state, as Megan Wolfe, the commission’s administrator, said in an April 28, 2023, report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

    Our ruling

    Godlewski claimed that one of her responsibilities is to “countersign acts passed by the legislature & signed into law by Gov. Evers.” 

    Although there is a line on the sheet that is signed by the Legislature and the governor for the secretary of state’s signature, it doesn’t actually matter if she does or doesn’t sign it. The secretary of state has no official role in the process of a bill becoming a law in Wisconsin. 

    We rate this claim as Mostly False, because it contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

     



    Source

  • Fact Check: Fact-checking misinformation about estrogen in meat and health effects on men

    Could the amount of estrogen in beef and chicken lead men to bald, develop enlarged breast tissue and curtail muscle development? The answer is no, despite popular misconceptions online.

    An Instagram reel features Bobby Price, a nutritionist who sells weight loss teas, which are found to be ineffective and in some cases, dangerous because they contain senna, a natural laxative that is not meant to be consumed daily. 

    Price says that chickens and cows have large amounts of natural and synthetic hormones that can cause unwanted side effects in men who consume them. 

    “When you eat the chicken and you eat the cow, you eat the hormones,” he said in a reel shared Feb. 26. “And the unfortunate thing is, the more and more you eat of that, it raises the estrogen levels in the body. And this is why you’re seeing so many men who struggle with building muscle mass, so many men who are developing what are called ‘man boobs,’ gynaecomastia. And then, so many men who are balding.” 

    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 amount of estrogen in meats is small and regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    “(It’s) not possible to eat enough chicken and/or beef (thousands of pounds), to get remotely close to causing any of the above adverse effects,” said Dr. Bradley Anawalt, an endocrinologist and medicine professor at the University of Washington.

    He told PolitiFact by email that it would take at least 100 micrograms or more of daily estradiol intake, the most potent form of estrogen, to affect a man. He said chicken and beef typically have less than 0.005 micrograms of estrogen per 100 grams of meat, and 1 pound of chicken or beef has about 0.025 micrograms of estrogen. 

    Anawalt added that excess estrogen, which could be caused by factors including medications, drinking too much alcohol or having too much stress, could lead to gynecomastia, or the enlargement of male breast tissue, and deter muscle mass growth by suppressing blood testosterone below normal levels. He said estrogen does not cause balding. That’s caused by heredity and excessive stress.

    Anawalt pointed to a study published in the Toxicology Research and Application journal that found there is no evidence that the hormone content in typical serving sizes of common foods harms health. 

    A Michigan State University Extension article written by Jared Jaborek, who earned a doctorate in animal sciences, shows beef has a low concentration of hormones when compared with vegetables, eggs and milk. The article adds that all organisms contain naturally occurring hormones. 

    Some cows in the U.S. are given synthetic hormones to promote growth, wrote Amanda Blair, an animal science professor at South Dakota State University.Those hormones are typically delivered through an implant on the animal’s ear that releases hormones over a period of time, not injected into the animal, as the video claimed. 

    But the FDA monitors and regulates those additional hormones to ensure products are safe to eat. And the FDA forbids the use of steroid hormones in poultry farming. 

    We rate the claim that the high levels of estrogen in chicken and cows lead men who eat them to bald, develop man boobs and be unable to grow muscle mass False. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Undocumented immigrants are not proof of a scheme to replace whites with nonwhites

    Far-right activist Charlie Kirk claimed that undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. is proof of an organized effort to “replace” white Americans.  

    “The ‘Great Replacement’ is not a theory, it’s a reality,” Kirk wrote in a Feb. 24 Instagram post alongside a screenshot of a Fox News story with the headline: “7.2M illegals entered the U.S. under Biden admin(istration), an amount greater than population of 36 states.”

    The Instagram 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.)

    We emailed Kirk at his Turning Point USA organization about the claim but received no response.

    The “great replacement theory” is a debunked conspiracy theory that warns of an elaborate conspiracy by Democratic and U.S. elites to systematically replace white Americans with nonwhite people to change U.S. political systems. It traces back to 20th century French nationalism but has become a frequent talking point for former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The theory also has been cited by several perpetrators of violent attacks of the last several years, including the shooter who killed 10 people at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket in 2022. 

    The theory ignores the many documented root causes people seek to immigrate to the U.S. through the southern border, including war, scarcity of food and medicine, a legacy of corporate colonialism and other social ills.

    This post’s claim distorts reported immigration figures.

    The number in Fox’s story — 7.2 million — represents the number of encounters U.S. border officials had with immigrants at the Southwest border from October 2021 through September 2024.

    But that figure doesn’t show how many migrants entered and remained in the country. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s encounter data tracks events, not people, and the same person can be recorded multiple times for repeated tries at crossing the border.

    Millions of encounters led to removals.

    There have been more than 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions from February 2021, Biden’s first month in office, to September 2023, Department of Homeland Security estimates show.

    This data also represents events, not people. So, the same person can be expelled multiple times and each time would count as a separate expulsion.

    About 2.3 million people have been released into the U.S. under Biden’s administration, Department of Homeland Security data shows. Most of them are families, according to The Washington Post. About 356,000 children who crossed the border alone were also let in.

    That data alone is not proof of a vast plan to systematically bring in undocumented immigrants to replace white citizens in the U.S., a nation of about 334 million people. 

    We rate this claim False. 

    PolitiFact Reporter Maria Ramirez Uribe contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Did Biden confirm blue roofs are spared in wildfires? No, that’s False

    After the recent wildfires in Texas, social media users resurfaced a conspiracy theory that blue structures are immune to flames. This time, they’re claiming President Joe Biden knows about this, too.

    A Feb. 29 Instagram post shared a clip of Biden speaking at the U.S.-Mexico border. In the video, Biden said, “If you fly over these areas that are burned to the ground, you’ll see in the midst of 20 homes that are just totally destroyed, one home sitting there because it had the right roof on it.”

    Text on the video read, “Remember the blue roofs during the Lahaina fires? Biden just seemed to confirm our suspicions.”

    (Screengrab from Instagram)

    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 wildfire that broke out across the Texas Panhandle is the largest fire in the state’s history, engulfing more than 1 million acres of land and killing at least two people. Hot weather, dry land and high winds fueled the fire’s spread. Authorities are still investigating how the fire started.

    The Instagram post takes Biden’s remarks out of context. In a longer clip, Biden talked about climate change and rebuilding after disaster strikes.

    “My administration is going to keep building on the progress we’ve made fighting the climate crisis, and we’re going to keep (helping) folks rebuild themselves in the wake of these disasters. And we rebuild to the standards that are up-to-date standards and building codes and the rest,” Biden said.

    The president was saying some roofs were intact because the structures were up to code, not because they were blue.

    Last year, when wildfires devastated Maui, Hawaii, social media users claimed that directed energy weapons were used to start the fires and blue cars, homes and other structures were the only things spared. However, these claims also are unfounded.

    We rate the claim that Biden acknowledged that wildfires spare homes of certain color False.



    Source