Category: Fact Check

Boos and jeers are a standard feature in the pageantry of wrestling. But was the jeering of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson at a World Wrestling Entertainment event linked to his support for President Joe Biden?

A Feb. 11 Instagram video that shared a clip of the actor and wrestler being booed said he is “a Joe Biden lover” and included a hammer-and-sickle graphic, a communist symbol. The video’s text said, “The Rock gets angry — gets MASSIVE BOOS from fans in Las Vegas. Rock is a Joe Biden lover. Rock supports Joe Biden.”

The post’s comments say the “Black Adam” and “Scorpion King” star’s “endorsement of sleepy Joe has cost him fans,” and that he is “another American who is anti America.”

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.)

Johnson was booed during a Feb. 8 Las Vegas press conference to promote WrestleMania 40, which will take place in April. WWE performances are scripted and dramatized; the boos were because of Johnson’s role as a villain in Philadelphia at WrestleMania 40, Johnson said in an X post.

Johnson was replying to a Feb. 9 X post with different claims about the crowd’s boos by conservative podcast host Nick Sortor, who wrote in all caps, “Crowd in Vegas boos ‘The Rock’ demanding he follow through with aid for Maui.” Johnson had established a fund with Oprah Winfrey to support Maui wildfire victims in his home state of Hawaii. Sortor’s X post also said “many victims still have not seen a dime” and that the crowd chanted “MAUI! MAUI! MAUI!”

Johnson reposted Sortor’s post on Feb. 11, describing it as “toxic, false clickbait garbage.” Johnson said the boos were because “I turned ‘heel’ — wrestling parlance for bad guy. I’m playing it up with our crowd as they boo. It’s what we do in our WWE universe, and we all love every second of it.”

PolitiFact reviewed an event livestream, and it did not show the crowd chanting “Maui.”

Johnson endorsed Biden in the 2020 elections but has not endorsed anyone in the 2024 presidential election.

We rate the claim that Johnson was booed in Las Vegas because he’s a Biden supporter False.

Heavy rain pounded much of California beginning Feb. 18, leaving about 37 million people across the state under flood alerts at one point, according to news reports.

Some social media users baselessly tied the wet weather to a pilot cloud seeding program — a type of weather modification — that’s intended to increase precipitation and thus, the state’s water supply.

A Feb. 19 Instagram post shared a video with sticker text that read, “The rain in California.”

“California, check this out. This may be the reason your weather is off lately,” a man in the video said.

The video shows a woman speaking at a public meeting about a Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority cloud seeding program. She said there could be unintended consequences of cloud seeding, such as an increase in urban flooding and said the silver iodide used in the process is toxic.

The original video received more than 2 million views on TikTok. We found other social media posts making similar connections between the storms and the cloud seeding program.

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 Watershed Project Authority launched a four-year cloud seeding pilot program in November that will target four mountain areas in Southern California chosen for their contribution to seasonal runoff. Its goal is to increase the water supply in the Santa Ana River watershed, the region’s largest river basin. Cloud seeding works by releasing silver iodide particles into the clouds during storms to increase precipitation.

But the Instagram post misleads both about the cloud seeding program’s  connection to recent storms and silver iodide’s safety.

A storm fueled by an atmospheric river — narrow corridors packed with water vapor that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls “rivers in the sky” — dumped buckets of rain, heavy winds and snow across California for three days beginning Feb. 18. In early February, similar back-to-back storms pummeled California, the second of which triggered hundreds of landslides in Los Angeles and killed at least nine people.

However, no cloud seeding took place during the two most recent severe storms, said Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority spokesperson Melissa Bustamonte.

“Cloud seeding was not performed during the Feb 3-8 storm events. These storm events were determined to be either too large or too close in succession to cloud seed,” Bustamonte said. “Also, the storm event of Feb 18-19 was not seeded either.”

The authority’s website lists the dates and areas where cloud seeding took place. The last cloud seeding happened Feb. 1, the website shows. Southern California that day was drenched by a storm dubbed a “Pineapple Express” — meaning an atmospheric river originating from Hawaii.

“During the February 1 storm event, cloud seeding operations occurred in target areas within the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains to increase snowpack,” Bustamonte said in an email.

The pilot program targets four mountainous areas surrounding the watershed in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties to enhance snowpack at those high elevations during storms, Bustamonte said.

The program does not seed areas in Los Angeles, Ventura or San Diego counties, she said.

The pilot program has “suspension criteria,” safeguards that prevent cloud seeding when there are potentially hazardous weather conditions, according to a report produced for the Watershed Authority in 2020.

“The objective of suspension is to eliminate the real and/or perceived impact of weather modification when any increase in precipitation has the potential of creating or contributing to a significant flood hazard,” the report said. 

Experts told PolitiFact the recent storms have no connection to the cloud seeding program, and that the silver iodide used in the process is considered safe.

“You only have to look at a satellite image to see where the rain is coming from,” said Gudrun Magnusdottir, a University of California, Irvine earth system science professor. She pointed to massive weather systems that have associated atmospheric rivers.

“No attempts at cloud seeding in some mountain region would cause such widespread precipitation as we are witnessing all over California,” Magnusdottir said.

Adele Igel, an associate professor in the University of California, Davis’ Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, said cloud seeding does not change general weather patterns.

She said estimates from the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority feasibility study show that ground-based seeding could increase precipitation by up to 4.5%.

“This means that if an area would have received one inch of precipitation without seeding, it would instead receive 1.045 inches with cloud seeding,” Igel said. “The cloud seeding then is not the determining factor for heavy rain.”

Igel also said the silver iodide used in the cloud seeding “is harmless to the environment.”

A pilot program fact sheet said more than 50 years of research has shown no “measurable human or environmental effects resulting from the use of silver iodide.” The concentration of silver iodide in water or snow from a seeded cloud “is nearly 1,000 times less than the Environmental Protection Agency standards,” the fact sheet said.

Our ruling

An Instagram post connected recent California storms and flooding to a pilot cloud seeding program underway in the state.

But the cloud seeding didn’t take place during the two most recent storms, and experts said it couldn’t cause the storms and heavy rainfall seen across the state. The claim is False.

Republican businessman Eric Hovde jumped in the race for one of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seats Tuesday, setting up a contest with U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat, and prompting a wash of criticism of his background and motivations.

One such criticism – from Heartland Signal, a digital newsroom anchored to a progressive Chicago radio station – lacked some key context. 

Heartland Signal shared a snippet of Hovde’s announcement event on X, in which the candidate says he understands human trafficking problems in Central American countries because he and his brother own homes there “that deal with issues like this.”  

In the post, they wrote that “Eric Hovde says he understands the tragedy of children being trafficked through Central America because he owns three homes there.” 

That paints a bit of a misleading picture, especially given that Democrats and allies have portrayed Hovde as a carpetbagger, citing his owning residences in California and Washington, D.C.  

Let’s take a quick dive in. 

Hovde is referring to charitable shelters, not private homes 

Other X users, including Milwaukee Journal Sentinel state politics reporter Jessie Opoien, were quick to point out what Heartland Signal left out. The homes Hovde referenced are shelters financed by his company’s charitable giving foundation, not residences as the post suggests. 

According to the foundation’s website, Hovde “has financed and oversees the construction and operation of Hovde Houses, which are homes that provide shelter, supportive services, education and love to vulnerable street children.” 

The website of Hovde’s company, Hovde Properties, describes them as providing “shelter, care, education and love to vulnerable children that were abandoned on the street or trafficked.” It also refers to them as Hovde Homes. 

Hovde’s campaign website also mentions the shelters under a section titled “Hovde’s Heart.” Twelve shelters have been completed to date in Bolivia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Peru, Rwanda and Wisconsin, according to the site, and one is currently in progress in Costa Rica. 

Beyond the above, little information exists online about the shelters. A 2014 Wisconsin State Journal article says Hovde opened the first one in Mexico City in 2006, which had served more than 200 homeless children. 

Still, it’s clear that those were the homes he was referencing, not private homes. 

It appears that Heartland Signal, too, realized the distinction. 

“While not mentioned in his speech, Hovde appears to be referring to his charitable foundation, Hovde Homes,” they replied to the original X post. 

Our ruling 

Progressive outlet Heartland Signal claimed that “Eric Hovde says he understands the tragedy of children being trafficked through Central America because he owns three homes there.” 

The homes he spoke of are shelters for vulnerable children, not residences. The original post left that distinction up to the public to suss out. 

Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. 

That fits here. 

 

 

In a recent press release warning about the dangers of ghost guns — untraceable guns that users can assemble from parts — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., touted the Transportation Security Administration’s efforts to find guns in airport passengers’ bags.

“We already saw that TSA found with metal detectors nearly 7,000 firearms at airports last year — an all-time high.” said Schumer said in the Jan. 29 press release.

Official data shows that Schumer is correct, though law enforcement experts add that proportionally, the rate of discovery has fallen.

TSA’s data

To properly store a firearm for flight, the TSA asks passengers to place “unloaded firearms in a locked hard-sided container as checked baggage only,” then, “declare the firearm and/or ammunition to the airline when checking your bag at the ticket counter.”

When a firearm is detected at an airport security checkpoint, a TSA officer will notify local law enforcement, which will then remove the passenger and the firearm from the checkpoint. The passenger may be arrested or ticketed. 

TSA does not confiscate the firearms found, though it can issue civil fines up to $15,000 and typically revokes eligibility for the TSA PreCheck program for at least five years.

In 2023, TSA reported seizing 6,737 firearms at airport security checkpoints — the most in its history. That was up from the previous record of 6,542 set the year before.

The most firearms were discovered at the airports in Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth, which are also the two busiest U.S. airports.

TSA also reported that about 93% of these firearms were loaded.

“We are still seeing far too many firearms at TSA checkpoints, and what’s particularly concerning is the amount of them loaded, presenting an unnecessary risk to everyone at the TSA checkpoint,” said TSA Administrator David Pekoske in a press release.

Law enforcement experts said the increased number of seizures stems partly from an increase in gun ownership. 

“Between 2020 and 2022, 60 million guns were sold,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said Keith Jeffries, a former federal security director at Los Angeles International Airport. “With that, about 7.5 million of those were new gun owners. So, anytime you see more guns or firearms flood the market, you’re probably going to see that chain reaction at the airport.”

Jeffries added that security technology has significantly improved over the last 21 to 22 years. 

“The older, two-dimensional X-rays are being replaced by the CT (computer tomography) technology, which gives you a 3-D image that is significantly better,” he said.

The rate of seizures

2023’s  record-setting airport gun seizure number needs one caveat: The rate of detection fell, said Sheldon H. Jacobson, a University of Illinois computer science professor who has studied aviation security for more than 25 years. Jacobson provided the technical foundations for risk-based security that informed the TSA’s PreCheck program’s design.

In 2023, TSA screened more than 858 million people. That means the agency intercepted 7.8 firearms per million passengers — a decline from 8.6 firearms found per million passengers in 2022.

Should air travelers feel safe?

Experts say that the rising number of gun seizures shouldn’t panic travelers.

“The majority of folks” who are found with firearms “are what we call low-risk passengers,” Jeffries said. “These are your more frequent travelers. They’re the ones usually in PreCheck. I don’t think there’s any malicious intent. The number one thing that we would hear out there, and I’m sure it still stands to this day, is, ‘I forgot it was in my bag.’”

Our ruling

Schumer said, “We already saw that TSA found with metal detectors nearly 7,000 firearms at airports last year — an all-time high.”

That number aligns with what TSA has reported for 2023. However, the rate of discovery fell compared with 2023 because the number of passengers increased even more.

We rate the statement Mostly True.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde has made his current stance on abortion public: He supports exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, and also thinks voters should decide the issue.

Hovde made his position clear when asked by PolitiFact Wisconsin to respond to a radio ad that targeted his stances on abortion, based on comments he made while running for the same office in 2012. 

Here’s the main claims on Hovde’s abortion stance in the ad, which was launched by A Better Wisconsin Together, a progressive research and communications group:

“Hovde said, ‘I am totally opposed to abortion’ and ‘I’m 100% pro-life.’ And he supported overturning Roe v. Wade,” says the ad, which began airing Feb. 21, a day after Hovde officially entered the race.

The ad also implies that Hovde opposes exceptions for rape and incest, because he’s been backed by Wisconsin Right to Life, a group that tracks its endorsed candidates’ stances on rape and incest. 

“With views like that, Hovde could be a crucial vote in favor of a national abortion ban,” the ad says.

We ultimately do not rate the claims in the ad. Hovde’s position has changed since he first ran for U.S. Senate in 2012 and made those claims, and he is just now publicly stating his new position.

But let’s dig into the claims for the purposes of this PolitiFact as the race gets started.

Claims in ad based on statements Hovde made while campaigning in 2012

When asked for backup, A Better Wisconsin Together Communications Director Lucy Ripp sent a memo that details the sources behind each claim in the ad.

Let’s tackle the claims one by one. 

First, the ad claims Hovde said he is “totally opposed to abortion.” That comment comes from Hovde’s appearance on “The Jerry Bader Show” in 2012, when he was running in the Republican primary for Senate.

Hovde was asked to address concerns from voters that his charity donated to embryonic stem cell research. 

“I am a strong believer in pro-life. I am totally opposed to abortion,” Hovde told the conservative radio show. 

He defended donating to research into multiple sclerosis, which he was diagnosed with in 1991, but disputed his money went to embryonic stem cell research.

So, the ad is correct in the first aspect: Hovde — albeit in 2012 — said he was “totally opposed to abortion.”

A Better Wisconsin Together says the second claim, that Hovde said he is “100% pro-life,” came from the same radio interview. 

Hovde didn’t say “100%” exactly, rather that he is a “strong believer.” Although that caveat is important, the sentiment is similar enough.

Now, for the third claim: Did Hovde say he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that guaranteed abortion rights? 

That claim is based on a WisconsinEye interview with Hovde. That was also in 2012, a full decade before Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Hovde did not elaborate on his stance when asked whether he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, beyond saying “yes” and repeating his answer when asked a second time.

So, all of those things, apart from one of the wordings, are things that Hovde did say. But a lot has changed since 2012.

Some Wisconsin Republicans have softened their stance on abortion after Democrats mobilized voters on the issue in 2022. 

Let’s check in with Hovde’s campaign to set the record straight on his stance.

Hovde’s campaign says he supports exceptions for rape, incest, the mother’s life

Ben Voelkel, a Hovde campaign spokesman, sent a statement from Hovde that shows his position has changed since 2012. 

Hovde said, “I believe we need exceptions for cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.”

The ad does not explicitly state that Hovde himself opposes exceptions for rape and incest, but suggests he would because Wisconsin Right to Life has supported him in the past.

Wisconsin Right to Life did endorse Eric Hovde in 2012, as well as Tommy Thompson, who eventually won the Republican primary. 

“Eric Hovde has indicated strong support for federal right-to-life issues should he be elected,” the anti-abortion group said.

The group said in 2023 that it opposes exceptions for rape and incest, but does support emergency medical exceptions.

Hovde also supports posing the issue to Wisconsin voters via referendum

Here’s the other part of Hovde’s stance. He says, “It is clear after the Dobbs decision that the people of Wisconsin are the ones who should decide this issue.”

Assembly Republicans voted last month to pass a bill asking voters whether Wisconsin should ban abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy. 

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., also pushed a referendum that would ask Wisconsin voters: “At what point does society have the responsibility to protect the life of an unborn child?” 

However, neither path looks viable at this point. 

The first proposal deploys a seldom-used process by which a law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor can be enacted only with voters’ approval, and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers opposes the effort. 

Johnson’s suggestion could be used, under current state law, only as a nonbinding vote — one that would measure public opinion but not change the law.

However, both processes don’t look possible at this point. Vos’ move would require Evers’ approval, which he wouldn’t give, and voters could not change the law the way Johnson suggested.

Bottom line: Hovde was “totally opposed” to abortion in 2012, but not in 2024

A Better Wisconsin Together ad that targets Republican U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde’s stances on abortion says: 

“Hovde said, ‘I am totally opposed to abortion’ and ‘I’m 100% pro-life.’ And he supported overturning Roe v. Wade,” the ad reads. 

Those three things, except for one slightly off wording, are true. But Hovde said those things more than a decade ago. 

Now, he says he supports exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s life. He also favors posing the issue to voters through a referendum. 

Like other Republicans, New York state Sen. George Borrello has taken issue with the Immediate Response Card initiative, a program backed by New York City Mayor Eric Adams to distribute debit cards to migrant families.

In a Feb. 5 X post, Borrello, R-Sunset Bay, wrote, “@NYCMayor said NYC will give $1,000 taxpayer-funded credit cards to migrants. @GovKathyHochul said that she is working on easing requirements for state jobs for migrants. When they say they are helpless to stop the influx, DON’T BELIEVE A WORD.”

Borello is referring to a program that would use taxpayer money to support purchases of food and baby supplies for migrants. However, Borrello inaccurately described the program as using credit cards when it uses prepaid debit cards.

Basics about the program

The initiative aims to provide basic necessities for migrants, most of whom crossed the U.S. border without legal status and now await determinations on asylum. 

The program is starting with 500 migrant families and, if successful, could be expanded to allocate $53 million. 

The money must be used to cover the costs of food and certain other necessities, such as baby supplies, that are outlined in an affidavit each family must follow. 

Funding amounts are based on a family’s size and could reach $1,000 per family, as Borrello said. Cards would be refilled every 28 days. 

Besides connecting families with “fresh food for their culturally relevant diets,” the pilot program aims to reduce city spending.

Adams’ office has projected that shifting to this method of supporting migrants will save New York City taxpayers more than $600,000 per month, or more than $7.2 million annually.

Adams’ office said such efforts are necessary because cities such as New York have experienced significant inflows of migrants during the recent immigration surge, and in turn, this has required taxpayers to shoulder significant up-front costs.

“New York City has led the nation in managing this national humanitarian crisis, providing compassion and care to more than 173,000 migrants who have come through our intake system asking for shelter since the spring of 2022,” Adams’ office said in a statement to PolitiFact. “And because of our work, we’ve also successfully helped more than 60 percent of those migrants move out of our care and get on the path to self-sufficiency.” 

Debit cards versus credit cards

The main inaccuracy in Borrello’s post concerns the type of cards that are being used. As PolitiFact has reported, credit cards and debit cards are different. 

With a credit card, the money spent is fronted by the card’s issuer with the expectation that the amount will be paid back later. Debit cards, by contrast, offer a preloaded cash amount and cannot be used to spend beyond the preloaded amount. 

The New York City program uses a debit card, not a credit card.

At a press conference, Adams said, “We need to dispel the rumor that we gave American Express cards to everyone, you know? That is just not true.”

Borrello’s office told PolitiFact that X posts’ space constraints made fully describing the method of payment difficult. “The most technically and contextually correct term for the cards handed to migrants would be ‘New York State taxpayer-funded, prepaid, reloadable, debit cards,’” his office said.

Borrello’s office called Adams’ plan a “naive gamble,” saying the affidavits signed by recipients may not be able to ensure that the money is used only for the agreed-to purchases. 

The cards “can be used for anything and are simply relying on the affidavit to try to ensure recipients only use the cards on approved items,” Borrello’s office said. “In reality, it is highly unlikely that the city’s staff will have the time to review all the grocery receipts of 500 recipients to check for unauthorized purchases.”

Our ruling

Borrello said, “NYC will give $1,000 taxpayer-funded credit cards to migrants.”

New York City is starting a pilot program that would give 500 migrants up to $1,000 loaded onto prepaid, reloadable debit cards. If officials consider the program successful and build it out fully, it could become a $53 million effort. 

These are not credit cards. Although credit cards use borrowed money that must be paid back later, debit cards use preloaded cash.

The statement is partially accurate but omits important details, so we rate it Half True.

As New York state legislators consider passing tougher laws on wage theft — the denial of a portion of employees’ income by their employers — one assemblywoman put a figure on the amount the state’s workers lose annually.

Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan, told the investigative news outlet ProPublica on Feb. 6 that “each year, more than $1 billion is stolen from the pockets of hardworking New Yorkers by unscrupulous employers, often targeting the workers with the fewest resources to fight back.”

We found the figure in several analyses of this issue in recent years, including one from 2017 that Rosenthal’s office cited. The most recent estimate suggests that $1 billion may be on the low end.

What is wage theft?

Wage theft occurs when “workers are denied their legally owed wages and benefits,” said Rebecca Berke Galemba, an associate professor at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies.

Galemba said wage theft can take many forms, including being paid below minimum wage, being paid less than an employee’s work agreement, a denial of overtime or meal or rest breaks, improper or illegal deductions from the worker’s paycheck, the withholding of tips, the misclassification of workers and/or outright nonpayment of what workers are owed.

Jacob Barnes, a researcher with Rutgers University’s Workplace Justice Lab, said several kinds of businesses often stand out as having high rates of minimum wage violations. These include private households that employ domestic workers and groundskeepers; food service and drinking establishments; personal service providers such as beauticians, massage therapists, parking attendants and animal caretakers; and farms.

New York state already has laws to counter wage theft. The Wage Theft Prevention Act was signed into law in 2017 but was updated with stronger provisions in a bill Gov. Kathy Hochul signed in September 2023. The new provisions include tougher penalties against violators, categorizing a violation as larceny.

Rosenthal and other legislators, including state Sen. Jessica Ramos, D-Jackson Heights, want to enact additional legislation to strengthen the laws further.

• S. 8451 would suspend certain liquor licenses of employers who commit wage theft. 

• S. 8452 would give the state commissioner of labor, as well as the state workers’ compensation board, the authority to issue stop-work orders if wage theft is discovered.

• S. 8453 would give the state commissioner of taxation and finance the power to suspend certificates of authority of employers that violate wage-theft laws. 

The three measures remain under consideration in committee.

Where does the $1 billion figure come from?

The earliest citation for the $1 billion figure can be found in a 2011 discussion at Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations School.

During the discussion, which involved lawyers for plaintiffs and management along with wage enforcement officials, participants “agreed it was necessary to address the money — close to $1 billion — stolen from low-income workers each year,” a program summary shows.

Esta R. Bigler, director of the Cornell school’s labor and employment law program and a participant in the 2011 discussion, told PolitiFact New York that she did not have updated wage theft statistics.

The $1 billion annual figure was cited again in a U.S. Labor Department analysis cited by ProPublica. The analysis compared New York workers’ reported wages to the relevant minimum wage levels. It found that employers took up to $1 billion from their workers annually. According to the analysis, New York ranked eighth-highest in the amount of back wages owed per worker.

A subsequent study, conducted in 2014 by the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-backed think tank in Washington, D.C., found that in the 10 most populous U.S. states, 2.4 million workers lost $8 billion in 2015 to minimum wage violations, or nearly a quarter of their earned wages, annually. The study found this type of wage theft affected 17% of low-wage workers.

The group found that in New York, workers lost $965 million from minimum wage violations that year, which is close to $1 billion. (This is the source Rosenthal’s office cited to PolitiFact.)

However, minimum wage violations are only one type of wage theft, so if that estimate is accurate, the total annual amount lost to wage theft in New York could be higher.

The most recent estimate, made in 2023 by the investigative journalism outlet Documented, is that New York state wage theft is $1 billion to $4 billion annually. This estimate is based on data from the New York state and U.S. labor departments that the outlet obtained through freedom of information and open records requests.

Our ruling

Rosenthal said, “Each year, more than $1 billion is stolen from” workers in New York state through wage theft.

The estimates of this figure span a decade and a half and come with a wide range of uncertainty.

But this figure, or one close to it, was cited in 2011, 2014 and 2017, and a 2023 estimate offered a range of $1 billion to $4 billion.

We rate the statement Mostly True.

El candidato presidencial republicano Donald Trump causó un alarme internacional cuando dijo que él “alentaría” a Rusia a hacer lo que quiera a un país miembro de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte que no pague por defensa colectiva. 

Trump dijo eso el 10 de febrero en un mitin en Conway, Carolina del Sur, mientras describía una conversación con un líder de un país de la OTAN durante su presidencia. Trump usó la anécdota para decir que él era fuerte con la OTAN y que obtenía resultados. Pero Trump malinterpreto varios hechos sobre la alianza y su record en el proceso. 

“Yo los hice pagar”, dijo Trump. Él dijo que la OTAN estaba en quiebra hasta que él llegó y le dijo a todos que tenían que pagar sus facturas, desde ese entonces supuestamente más dinero comenzó a entrar.

Un video en Instagram muestra parte del discurso de Trump traducido al español, diciendo, “Si no pagan a la OTAN, no solo no les protegeremos sino que animamos a Rusia a atarcales”. Este también muestra a Trump con subtítulos diciendo, “¡Ustedes tienen que pagar sus facturas, y entonces el dinero vino sin parar!”.

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).

El jefe de la OTAN, líderes europeos y el presidente Joe Biden criticaron los comentarios de Trump. Biden dijo que Trump era muy amigable con el presidente de Rusia Vladimir Putin. Algunos republicanos minimizaron lo que Trump dijo; otros lo criticaron. 

No podemos verificar si esa conversación sucedió, pero podemos examinar cómo y por qué los gastos de la defensa europea cambiaron bajo Trump (y otros líderes). 

Primero, una clarificación importante: No hay países con pagos atrasados a la OTAN. Por años, Trump ha malinterpretado el objetivo de gasto para la defensa de cada país como pagos debidos a la alianza. 

“Los países quedándose cortos tendrán defensas más débiles de lo que nos gustaría, pero ellos no están morosos”, dijo Stephen Saideman, un profesor en la Norman Paterson School of International Affairs de Carleton University. 

Muchos países miembros han incrementado su gasto en defensa nacional desde 2014. 

Pero los líderes europeos probablemente hicieron eso pensando en otro líder, no Trump.

“Si alguna persona es responsable de hacer a los europeos gastar más en defensa, es Vladimir Putin”, escribió Ivo Daalder, presidente del Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, y un Representante Permanente de Estados Unidos en la OTAN durante parte de la administración de Obama, “No Donald Trump”.

Contactamos a voceros de Trump y no recibimos respuesta. 

John Bolton, quien era el consejero de seguridad nacional de Trump en el 2018 y ahora critica a Trump, le dijo a The Washington Post que Trump presionó agresivamente a socios de la OTAN a incrementar el gasto militar, “pero él no dijo nada de defender a nadie contra Rusia”. 

La agresión de Putin llevó a gastar más a los aliados de la OTAN

La OTAN fue creada en 1949 para proveer seguridad colectiva contra la Unión Soviética. La alianza tiene 31 miembros, incluyendo a los Estados Unidos. 

La alianza acordó que un ataque armado contra uno o más de sus miembros constituiría a un ataque contra todos, y cada miembro tomaría acción, incluyendo el uso de la fuerza armada. 

Los países en la OTAN no pagan dinero a un presupuesto de defensa en común de la OTAN; cada país determina su propio nivel de gasto militar. 

En el 2014, luego de que Rusia anexó ilegalmente a Crimea, la cabeza de estado y gobierno de la OTAN acordó en gastar 2% de su  producto interno bruto (PIB) de defensa para el 2024, un objetivo discutido por muchos años. 

El acuerdo fue aspiracional, no obligatorio. Los países no son morosos si no cumplen ese objetivo. 

“Están negándose a cumplir un compromiso, pero no existe un mecanismo para hacerlos cumplir”, dijo Justin Logan, director de defensa y de estudios de políticas exteriores en el Cato Institute. 

El objetivo de 2% consiste “en que cada país invierta en su propia defensa para que la alianza en conjunto pueda ser más fuerte, pueda detener o defenderse mejor de varias amenazadas (mayormente Rusia)”, Saideman dijo.

La OTAN no estaba en quiebra cuando Trump se volvió presidente en 2017. 

El gasto de defensa de la OTAN ha incrementado desde el anexo de Crimea del 2014, y el gasto aceleró luego de que Rusia invadiera aún más a Ucrania en 2022, Jeremy Shapiro, director de investigación del European Council on Foreign Relations, le dijo a PolitiFact. 

Logan dijo que los ataques de Rusia y las declaraciones de Trump afectaron las decisiones de gastos de los aliados. 

“El vertiginoso gasto de Polonia, por ejemplo, tiene todo que ver con el miedo a Rusia”, Logan dijo. Polonia incrementó su gasto en defensa como porcentaje del PIB de aproximadamente el 2.4% en 2022 al 3.9% en 2023. 

A fecha de julio de 2023, la OTAN reportó que 11 miembros cumplieron con la meta del PIB de 2%: Estonia, Finlandia, Grecia, Hungría, Letonia, Lituania, Polonia, Rumania, Eslovaquia, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos. 

El Secretario General de OTAN Jens Stoltenberg dijo el 14 de febrero que él espera que 18 aliados gasten 2% del PIB de defensa en 2024 — un incremento de seis veces desde 2014, cuando solo tres aliados cumplieron el objetivo. 

“Políticamente, cumplir el nivel de 2% mantiene a tu país fuera del foco y en un estado general de gracia política”, Logan dijo, “Es por lo cual muchos países pequeños y vulnerables en el este de Europa lo hacen”.

Logan hizo advertencias sobre centrarse en el objetivo del 2% del PIB.

El 2% “de la economía alemana es más que el doble de la economía completa de Estonia”, apuntando al PIB. 

Muchos de los miembros que están cumpliendo el objetivo — Estonia, Letonia, Lituania y Eslovaquia — no ofrecen un poder militar significativo.

“Francia y Turquía, los cuales no cumplen con el estándar de 2%, tienen mucho más potencia de fuego que la mayoría de esos que cumplen con el estándar”, Logan dijo. 

Trump está equivocado al decir que esta sola amenaza hizo que los aliados de la OTAN incrementaran sus fondos de defensa. Las administraciones de Barack Obama y Biden también pidieron un incremento en el gasto de defensa europeo. 

“Es imposible saber si las amenazas de Trump tuvieron más impacto que las apelaciones de solidaridad de Obama y Biden”, Shapiro dijo. 

Biden y oficiales de alto rango en su administración han apoyado el objetivo de 2%. 

Cada presidente estadounidense desde Harry S. Truman urgió a los aliados europeos a hacer más, Daalder escribió, añadiendo que Trump no fue el primero ni será el último.

El Corresponsal Senior de PolitiFact Louis Jacobson contribuyó a este artículo. 

Este artículo originalmente fue escrito en inglés y traducido por Maria Briceño.

Read this story 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.