Here’s the bald truth: There is no proof former President Donald Trump wears a wig, or that it fell off during one of his rallies.
According to a Feb. 17 Instagram video, about 15 minutes into his stump speech at a recent rally in Pensacola, Florida, “everyone watched in utter disbelief as Trump’s hair was lifted completely off his head.”
The supposed incident was shown at the end of the video. After Trump says, “Now they wanna have a transcript of the other call, the second call, and I’m willing to provide that, we’ll probably give it to you on Tuesday,” his hair flies off and gets sucked into an airplane.
(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.)
Don’t blow your top, but this video isn’t real. It’s not new, either; we found a copy of this video uploaded in November 2019.
It wasn’t a clip of Trump doing his stump speech at a Pensacola rally. In the original video, he was speaking to reporters Nov. 9, 2019, on the Joint Base Andrews tarmac in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
Trump told reporters he was willing to provide a transcript of a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But in the original clip, Trump’s hair stayed firmly in place.
Another video of these remarks uploaded on C-SPAN also didn’t show a hairless Trump. We found no news reports that support this claim, either.
The video doesn’t show Trump’s wig falling off while he was giving a speech; that’s a bald-faced alteration. We rate it Pants on Fire!
More than four months into the Israel-Hamas war, one social media user shared a 4-year-old video and suggested it shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu finds Arabs unclean.
A Feb. 19 Instagram post shared a video of Netanyahu at a news conference receiving a microphone from someone the post described as a United Arab Emirates official. Netanyahu started to reach for the mic, then wagged his index finger and rubbed his hands together, summoning someone offscreen.
Sticker text above the video read, “Netanyahu refuses to take mic from UAE official that is a sign of disrespect in Arab culture.”
“Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to take a microphone from a UAE official and calls his aid to bring him hand sanitizers which suggests that they are unclean,” the post’s caption read. The caption also said that perhaps Netanyahu feared “there was an explosive in the mic as some leaders in the past have been targeted with explosives in mics.”
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 Instagram post omits crucial context about the video to make it seem as if Netanyahu refused to touch the microphone because an Arab man handed it to him.
(Instagram screenshot)
We found the full video on the prime minister’s official X account, @IsraeliPM. It was from a ceremony at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, celebrating the first commercial airplane flight from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to Israel.
“This is the first commercial flight from Dubai to Israel. It is a historic flight,” the Nov. 26, 2020 X post read, linking to a news release from the prime minister’s office, which quoted Netanyahu.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the welcoming ceremony for the first Flydubai commercial flight from Dubai at Ben Gurion Airport: “This is the first commercial flight from Dubai to Israel. It is a historic flight”
In the video, after refusing the mic at first, an aide brought Netanyahu hand sanitizer, which the Israeli leader rubbed on his hands before continuing to speak.
The event’s date, November 2020, was the first clue that the Instagram post was misleading. The world was amid a raging COVID-19 pandemic then. There were no vaccines available and health officials were urging people to use preventive measures such as masking, social distancing, hand-washing and hand sanitizer. A month after this event, Israel announced a third national lockdown because of surging coronavirus cases in that country.
The event’s full video shows more context about Netanyahu’s motives in requesting the hand sanitizer. It shows him arriving at the event with his aides, everyone wearing masks, including Netanyahu. Instead of shaking hands with people, Netanyahu greeted people with elbow bumps.
Benjamin Netanyahu bumps arms with people before news conference at Israel airport in Novemberr 2020.
In March 2020, Netanyahu urged Israelis to change their behavior in response to the pandemic, including to refrain from shaking hands, according to the text of his address published by The Times of Israel.
“We love to embrace. We love to shake hands. We love to kiss. No more,” Netanyahu said. “I have already specified certain changes that we need to make. First, to refrain from shaking hands, to wash hands. We will also issue directives about that again, repeatedly, to maintain personal hygiene.”
Netanyahu apparently forgot his own handshake directive in June 2020 when meeting with Brian Hook, the U.S. special envoy to Iran in former President Donald Trump’s administration.
Later, Netanyahu realized his mistake.
Benjamin Netanyahu speaking with U.S. official Brian Hook in June 2020.
The two men then used hand sanitizer before bumping elbows for the cameras.
“Elbow shake,” Netanyahu said. “That’s it. That’s as far as we go.”
Historical photos and videos show Netanyahu shaking hands with Arab leaders in the past, such as Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat in 1996, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2010, 2015 and 2016. A 2018 video shows Netanyahu shaking hands with Sultan Qaboos bin Said during a visit to Oman and a 2019 photo shows him shaking hands with Oman’s foreign minister.
In 2019, Netanyahu attended a conference on Middle East peace in Warsaw, Poland. According to Trump’s U.S. peace envoy, Jason Greenblatt, the prime minister’s microphone stopped working as he was about to address delegates in a session closed to the press. Khaled Alyemany, Yemen’s foreign minister, who was sitting next to Netanyahu, let him use his, The Times of Israel reported. Hand sanitizer wasn’t mentioned.
The Instagram claim that Netanyahu refused to touch a microphone because an Arab man handed it to him misleads about the context surrounding the incident. It came during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and as Netanyahu was publicly urging Israelis to take preventive measures like washing hands frequently. The claim is False.
Did President Joe Biden announce a program that would effectively bring back slavery? Social media users feared as much after a supposed announcement of a new tax incentive program.
“Just in: President Biden announces tax incentives for families willing to take in slav– migrants in a new ‘Housing for Labor’ initiative,” read the text in a Feb. 18 Instagram post. “‘You can now apply to keep a migrant in your home in exchange for cooking, cleaning, picking crops, and landscaping.’”
(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.)
We checked, and there’s no such initiative. The claim originated from a satirical post.
The text came from a Feb. 16 X post by the account “U.S. Ministry of Truth.” Its bio says, “Satire or prophecy depending on the day.”
It tagged the IRS’ X account, but the agency’s social media accounts and website showed no such initiative. We also found no news reports and no Google or Nexis search results show such a program exists.
IRS spokesman Eric Smith told PolitiFact that “the IRS has not announced or been involved in announcing any housing-related initiatives.” We also reached out to the White House for comment.
The State Department does have a private sponsorship program called Welcome Corps, in which groups of five or more Americans voluntarily assist refugees during their first 90 days in the U.S. Initial services provided include assistance with securing affordable housing.
But Biden didn’t announce a “Housing for Labor” initiative that would give tax incentives for families willing to take in migrants. We rate that claim False.
Pending regulations under review by the Biden administration could greatly increase the number of electric vehicles sold in the U.S. But if implemented, the proposals to reduce tailpipe emissions and raise the fuel efficiency standards of cars and trucks would not “ban” the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, as a trade group for fuel makers falsely suggests in an ad campaign.
Policy experts told FactCheck.org that carmakers – particularly under the suggested federal regulations – would have flexibility in how they meet the proposed requirements, including by making vehicles with internal combustion engines more efficient.
“Requiring vehicles to be more efficient and emit less is something that regulators in the US have done for decades, and automakers are free to comply with those standards in whatever strategy works best for them,” John Helveston, a George Washington University assistant professor of engineering management and systems engineering, said in an email.
However, two ads airing in seven states and the Washington, D.C., area give viewers the impression that cars that run on gas soon will not be allowed to be made and sold in the U.S. The ads are part of a reported $7 million issue-ad campaign the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers began on Feb. 12.
“We don’t all live in cities, but President Biden’s EPA is rushing to ban new gas-powered cars even though some of us drive long distances, live too far from a charger, or can’t afford an expensive electric vehicle,” say the narrators in the AFPM ad titled “All of Us.”
In the other ad, called “Open Roads,” a narrator makes an identical claim, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency “wants to end” the “freedom to travel where you want” and “how to get there.”
In a press release, the AFPM says its ad campaign informs the public about “various Biden policies designed to eliminate gas vehicles,” including one from the EPA and another from the U.S. Department of Transportation. On its website, the fuel group also says it is concerned about a California policy that needs EPA approval before the vehicle emissions regulations a state agency adopted in 2022 can be put into effect.
We’ll review the three proposals in question, and why experts told us the policies are not an EPA “ban” on gasoline-powered cars and trucks.
EPA’s Proposed Emissions Rule
We’ve already written that President Joe Biden’s EPA has not “dictated that nearly 70% of all cars sold in the United States must be fully electric less than 10 years from now,” as former President Donald Trump misleadingly claimed in a September speech at a Michigan auto parts plant.
Instead, five months earlier, in April, the EPA announced new proposed rules designed to reduce pollution from vehicles by setting stricter limits on the tailpipe emissions produced by newly made light-, medium– and heavy-duty cars and trucks. As written, most of the proposed standards would begin to phase in as early as 2027, with updated standards for some heavy-duty vehicles starting the following year.
Companies that are not in compliance could face penalties, including fines.
The EPA said in a statement that the proposed standards are “projected to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” which have zero tailpipe emissions when running only on electricity. In order for auto manufacturers to meet the new standards, EVs “could account for 67% of new light-duty vehicle sales and 46% of new medium-duty vehicle sales” in 2032, the agency said.
That is in line with Biden’s stated goal to have electric cars account for 50% of new vehicle sales by 2030 – up from 7.6% in 2023, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates.
A New York Times article in May said the EPA’s proposal was “designed to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while ending the use of gasoline-powered cars” — a quote that was paraphrased in the AFPM’s “All of Us” ad. But an April New York Times article used different language, saying the proposal was “designed to ensure two-thirds of new passenger cars and a quarter of new heavy trucks sold in the United States are all-electric by 2032.”
For its part, the EPA said that the number of EVs produced in the future ultimately would depend on “the compliance pathways manufacturers select” to meet the standards.
Automakers, in theory, could use alternative strategies to ensure their fleets meet the lower emissions targets without needing to manufacture as many EVs. That’s what Joseph Goffman, principal deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said in congressional testimony last June.
“We know that Americans need and want flexibility in the types of vehicles they drive,” he told lawmakers on a House Oversight and Accountability subcommittee. “The proposed standards are performance-based emissions standards and are technology-neutral, meaning that manufacturers choose the mix of technologies, including internal combustion engines.”
However, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an auto industry trade association, said the standards “are neither reasonable nor achievable in the timeframe covered in this proposal.”
Now the New York Times reports that, as of February, the EPA is planning to revise the proposed rule, slowing the pace at which companies would need to comply. The newspaper said the EPA’s final rule is expected to be published by early spring.
DOT’s Proposed Fuel Standards
As for the Transportation Department, its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in July proposed updating Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards for passenger cars and light trucks, as well as heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
NHTSA said the proposal “includes a 2% per year improvement in fuel efficiency for passenger cars, and a 4% per year improvement for light trucks, beginning in model year 2027 and ramping up through model year 2032, potentially reaching an average fleet fuel economy of 58 miles per gallon by 2032.”
For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the efficiency standards would increase at a rate of 10% per year for model years 2030 through 2035.
The agency said the proposed standards will “complement and align” with the EPA’s proposed emissions standards for similar vehicles.
While the AFPM argues the standards “are so severe they can only be met if the new vehicle fleet is primarily composed of cars and trucks that run on electrons rather than gallons,” NHTSA said “manufacturers may use all available technologies – including advanced internal combustion engines, hybrid technologies and electric vehicles – for compliance.”
California’s Plan for Zero-Emissions Vehicles
Prior to the introduction of those federal proposals, regulators in California adopted a plan in 2022 to eventually prohibit the sale of certain new vehicles powered only by gasoline and other fuels.
The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which was approved by the California Air Resources Board, would require an increasing percentage of new vehicles sold in the state each year to be zero-emissions vehicles, or ZEVs, and plug-in hybrids, or PHEVs. Beginning in 2026, “sales of new ZEVs and PHEVs will start with 35% that year, build to 68% in 2030, and reach 100% in 2035,” the resources board says on its website.
Cars travel along Interstate 80 on Jan. 16 in Berkeley, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.
To meet the requirements, automakers would only be able to use full battery-electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. In addition, the board says, plug-in hybrids, which run on fuel when the vehicle’s electric battery is almost depleted, cannot make up more than 20% of an automaker’s fleet. Also, the PHEVs must be able to travel at least 50 miles while in the all-electric range.
The requirements, which still need EPA approval, would apply to all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in the state. Notably, the plan also would allow Californians to continue driving their existing gas cars, as well as purchase a used gas car.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is permitted to set its own vehicle pollution standards – that other states can then follow – but officials must get a waiver from the EPA to do so. The EPA has not yet issued its ruling.
In September, 214 House Republicans and eight House Democrats passed a bill that would block the EPA from granting a waiver to California or another state that sets standards to “directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new vehicles with internal combustion engines.” But the measure has not been taken up in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.
The AFPM argues that if California receives a government waiver, it could lead more than a dozen other states “to adopt California’s ban as their own.”
No EPA ‘Ban’ on Gas Cars
But experts told FactCheck.org that the AFPM ads go too far by claiming that the proposed federal regulations are equivalent to the EPA “rushing to ban new gas-powered cars.”
“I think the statement is exaggerated, because the various federal policies do not ban gasoline vehicles — explicitly or implicitly — anytime soon,” Arthur van Benthem, an associate professor of business economics and public policy at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an email.
Jeremy Michalek, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of engineering and public policy, agreed.
“[T]he new standards are not a ban on gasoline vehicles, and I don’t think anyone expects automakers to stop making gasoline vehicles in response to these standards,” Michalek, who also heads the school’s Vehicle Electrification Group, wrote in an email.
They both acknowledged that the proposed federal rules are quite strict, and would require manufacturers to make a portion of their fleet all-electric to comply. But Michalek said automakers would still have the flexibility to include some gasoline-powered vehicles.
Even under California’s state policy, which is “close to a ban by the year 2035,” van Benthem said, “plug-in hybrids can still be sold and they do partially run on gasoline.”
“In short, all three [proposals] would allow gas-powered cars to remain on the road – they would just have to be much more efficient than the cars today,” said Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale University.
Still, “the standards are ambitious and would provide a strong incentive for automakers to produce and sell more electric vehicles,” he said.
In December, 216 House Republicans and five House Democrats passed a bill that would block the Biden administration from moving forward with the EPA’s proposed vehicle emissions regulations. The legislation was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where it stalled.
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.
Following a $355 million court ruling against his business empire, former President Donald Trump lashed out, blaming President Joe Biden, his likely opponent in November.
In a Feb. 16 statement posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump’s campaign referred to the case as the “Crooked Joe Biden-directed New York AG Witch Hunt,” vowing to “fight Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized persecution at every step.”
Trump often describes cases against him as “election interference” or “political,” including the federal prosecution in the election interference case headed by Special Counsel Jack Smith. But this specific attack by Trump directed at New York Attorney General Letitia James is particularly misleading because she is a state elected official who does not take direction from federal leaders.
We interviewed four former state attorneys general. They told us that, in that role, it’s not uncommon to communicate with federal officials, but that such contacts hardly amount to an official from one level of government “directing” what an official from another level of government does in an investigation or prosecution.
We contacted the Trump campaign to ask for his evidence but received no reply.
In the civil fraud case Trump referred to, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron ruled against Trump, concluding that Trump, Trump’s business and affiliated people had committed fraud by falsely inflating the value of his assets. Engoron ordered them to pay more than $450 million including interest. Trump is appealing the ruling.
James signaled she would investigate Trump in 2018
During her 2018 campaign for attorney general, James made several public statements announcing her intent to investigate Trump, though she didn’t specify the type of case she would file.
During a September 2018 debate, James was asked, “What is your view of the proper basis required to start an investigation?” And how, a moderator asked, would she guard against a rush to judgment “against someone, whether it’s an average, unknown New Yorker or Donald Trump and his associates?”
In her answer, James replied, “We need to follow his money.”
In November 2018, after James won, she said, “Oh, we’re going to definitely sue him. We’re going to be a real pain in the ass. He’s going to know my name personally.”
In March 2019, James opened an investigation into Trump after his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump’s annual financial statements had inflated the values of Trump’s assets. James filed the lawsuit against Trump in 2022.
James’ investigation started before Biden became the Democratic presidential front-runner in spring 2020 and well before he became president Jan. 20, 2021. In 2018, Biden was a professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania; he announced his candidacy in April 2019.
So, from the timeline alone, Trump’s assertion that Biden “directed” James’ case is nonsensical.
James visited the White House for events
In our search for Trump’s evidence, we noted that Trump has linked James to Biden in previous remarks, saying she had visited Biden at the White House.
“Letitia James visited Joe Biden in the White House numerous times during the Trump witch hunt,” Trump said in January as the civil fraud trial was wrapping up. Trump called it a “conspiracy” to help Biden politically.
She did make three visits, but they were hardly a secret.
In each case, James went to the White House for widely attended events in her official capacity, according to White House visitor logs:
An April 8, 2022, event saluting the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. The visitor log shows 448 people attended the event, including five Democrats serving as state attorneys general. James posed for a photo with attorneys general from Illinois and Nevada. Although the visitor logs said James met with Biden, the president made public remarks on the lawn and the White House told PolitiFact that he did not meet with attendees individually. This video shows after Biden’s remarks he walked away from the crowd.
A July 18, 2023, meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris on fentanyl policy. A statement released by the White House after that event said Harris convened attorneys general from seven states and the District of Columbia for a conversation on efforts to disrupt the supply chain for the deadly drug and improve responses to overdoses. Twenty-six people attended the event, the log shows; Biden was not among them.
An Aug. 31, 2023, event with Harris honoring Black women holding elected office across the country. The National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women and the Higher Heights Leadership Fund co-hosted the event, at Harris’ home. The visitor log showed 243 people attended the event, including James, who is Black. Biden did not attend.
Would a state attorney general and a president coordinate?
Bob Butterworth, who was a Democratic attorney general in Florida from 1987 to 2002, said in a telephone interview that attorneys general may coordinate joint investigations with officials in other states or from federal agencies such as the FBI.
However, Butterworth said, “I can’t ever recall being directed by a president. I think they have better things to do.”
Bill McCollum, a Republican attorney general in Florida from 2007 to 2011, said there are occasions when state attorneys general coordinate with federal regulators or the U.S. Justice Department on investigations. But he added that he had no way to know whether that happened in this case.
“No state AG can be directed to do anything by any federal official other than a federal judge,” McCollum told PolitiFact in an email. “Of course, the president could ask a state AG to do something, but states are sovereign and cannot be mandated to do things by the federal government, which only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution and amendments thereto.”
James Tierney, a Democratic former Maine attorney general who has taught about state attorneys general at Columbia University, Harvard University and New York University, said state and federal governments do coordinate enforcement actions, for everything from prosecuting a drug cartel to challenging a corporate merger.
But both Tierney and Scott Harshbarger, a Democrat who served as attorney general in Massachusetts, agreed that Trump’s suggestion that Biden directed James was entirely unsupported. The notion is “absurd,” Harshbarger said.
Our ruling
Trump said Biden “directed New York AG Witch Hunt” into Donald Trump’s real estate.
The timeline of James’ actions conflict with Trump’s statement. James said several times on the campaign trail in 2018 that she would investigate Trump; once she took office in March 2019, she launched the investigation. Biden was not the Democratic front-runner until spring 2020 and was not sworn in as president until January 2021.
Past attorneys general said state attorneys general do sometimes coordinate with federal officials, but they said they see no evidence that Biden “directed” James’ investigation.
We rate this statement False.
RELATED: More than 1,000 fact-checks of Donald Trump
The mineral fluoride, at the right dose, has been shown to reduce the risk of tooth decay. Based on studies demonstrating this in children drinking naturally fluoride-containing water, individual cities in the U.S. began to add fluoride to tap water beginning in 1945.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and multiple expert groups endorse water fluoridation as a safe way to reduce tooth decay, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
However, a Feb. 4 post from independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on X, formerly known as Twitter, made a sweeping claim about fluoride’s effects on the nervous system. “As president. I’m going to order the CDC to take every step necessary to remove neurotoxic fluoride from American drinking water,” the post said.
Kennedy, who has a history of advocating against water fluoridation, accompanied his claim about fluoride’s neurotoxicity with a link to a Law360 article about testimony in a trial that has been unfolding in a San Francisco-based federal district court. The case was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency by nonprofit organizations and other plaintiffs and alleges that fluoridation poses “an unreasonable risk of injury to health” under a version of Toxic Substances Control Act amended in 2016. The plaintiffs are asking the EPA to disallow adding fluoride to drinking water.
Other popular social media posts have also referenced the trial, claiming that “multiple studies confirm fluoride is a neurotoxin that violates the Toxic Substances Control Act and reduces IQ in kids.”
But the data on water fluoridation and neurotoxicity are less clear-cut than social media posts by Kennedy or others make them out to be.
Some studies — many of them done in areas of the world with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water supplies well above the optimally recommended level — suggest a possible association between greater levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy or early childhood and reduced IQ in children. But many scientific experts have said the evidence for this association is weak.
The EPA has argued that there isn’t strong or consistent evidence fluoridation at recommended levels lowers IQ — in line with the general sentiment held by the CDC and various expert groups that water fluoridation is safe.
U.S. Regulation of Fluoride in Water
On a federal level in the U.S., the Public Health Service first recommended fluoridation of tap water in 1962. However, the decision on whether to add fluoride to tap water is up to states and municipalities. As of 2020, around 63% of Americans received fluoridated water.
Exposure to fluoride in early childhood is known to cause dental fluorosis, a condition most often characterized by mild discoloration of the teeth. The AAP says that it is safe to mix baby formula with fluoridated tap water, although consuming fluoride isn’t necessary for babies under 6 months old and comes with a small risk of dental fluorosis.
According to the CDC, experts have concluded there isn’t an association between recommended water fluoridation and any other negative health impacts.
Based on evidence of skeletal problems when people are exposed to quite high levels of fluoride over time, the Environmental Protection Agency has set an upper limit of 4 mg per liter for fluoride in tap water from public water systems. However, the agency recommends that fluoride levels in tap water be kept below 2 mg per liter to protect from dental fluorosis. The fluoride level recommended by the Public Health Service to improve dental health is below these limits — at 0.7 mg per liter.
Beyond fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can also include such items as black tea or swallowed toothpaste. It is generally only present in very small amounts in food, although fluoridated salt or milk rather than fluoridated water are used in some non-U.S. countries.
Draft Report Wasn’t Meant to Evaluate Water Fluoridation Safety
In a Feb. 6 post, also on X, Kennedy elaborated on his fluoridation claims, referencing a draft report from the National Toxicology Program that has been a focus of the case against the EPA. A final version of the report has not been published.
“The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has declared, ‘… the data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ,’” Kennedy’s post said, quoting from an outdated version of a meta-analysis document associated with the report and leaving out some context. A meta-analysis is a type of study in which researchers gather the available data on a topic and combine it to attempt to draw a larger conclusion.
But the NTP report was not meant to establish whether water fluoridation at typical levels was safe and looked at fluoride exposure from any source and at any level. Scientists who reviewed the draft for the NTP expressed concerns that the sentence Kennedy quoted did not make this clear.
michaelheim / stock.adobe.com
The NTP’s reports “are used by other federal agencies as a starting point for further study to determine if there is a risk to humans, and at what exposure level,” a spokesperson from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which houses the NTP administratively, told us via email. The fluoride report “is not a risk assessment, and therefore, does not determine the safety of fluoride.”
Kennedy also claimed in his post that the NTP report had been “hidden from the public.” The NIEHS spokesperson told us that the report is still being revised and that publication was delayed by the NTP director, who tasked a working group with reviewing the many comments and criticisms of the document.
Multiple groups of experts — from both within and outside the government — reviewed various drafts of the report, saying they had concerns that its conclusions were not properly supported. A recurring area of concern was whether the authors of the NTP report had sufficiently made clear that their overall conclusions on fluoride’s effects on IQ might not apply to the lower levels of fluoride found in properly fluoridated drinking water.
“The authors point to their inclusion of studies with low fluoride levels but provide no interpretation of the evidence at these levels,” wrote the working group assembled to review criticisms of the report. “Rather, the authors provide a single statement in the Abstract that encompasses all studies: ‘The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ’. This may overstate the evidence provided by studies with low exposure.”
Evidence on Water Fluoridation and IQ Is Limited
David Savitz, an epidemiologist at Brown University who studies the effects of environmental exposures on reproductive health, led a group of experts that reviewed two early versions of the NTP report. This group was convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which provides independent advice on scientific topics to help the government set policies.
Savitz testified in the trial as a witness for the EPA, zeroing in on four long-standing cohort studies looking at prenatal and early-life exposures to fluoride via various sources, including fluoridated water but also fluoridated salt. These studies evaluated fluoride exposures at levels most relevant to the discussion of water fluoridation. They all provided measurements of fluoride in the urine of pregnant women and assessed their children using cognitive tests.
“There is not at this time a consistent indication of there being an association present, let alone a causal association,” Savitz said during Feb. 7 testimony, speaking of IQ and fluoride exposure in the “range of interest.”
The OCC and INMA studies, respectively performed in Denmark and Spain, found no link between increased urinary fluoride levels and reduced cognitive test scores. A study in women in Mexico, called ELEMENT, found an association between increased urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy and reduced cognitive test scores in children.
The MIREC study, of women in Canada, “in my view is mixed,” Savitz said. “In the aggregate results, which is I think where one starts, it’s very limited in indicating a potential adverse effect.” But it did show “notable sex differences,” he said. The study stated that increased fluoride in the urine of pregnant women was associated with reduced IQ scores in boys.
Other researchers have criticized some of the methods and conclusions of the MIREC study, writing, for instance, that it was unclear whether the researchers planned their assessment by sex prior to starting the study. Doing unplanned subgroup analyses can lead to false-positive results, the researchers wrote.
Authors of some other recently published meta-analyses have also discussed the limited evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity — particularly for people drinking water with the recommended 0.7 mg of fluoride per liter.
A 2021 meta-analysis published in Scientific Reports found that exposure to high levels of fluoride was associated with lower IQ but did not find a link between exposure to low levels of fluoride and neurological problems. The researchers defined high fluoride exposure as above 2 mg per liter and low exposure as between 0.5 and 1 mg per liter. The researchers ultimately concluded that the quality of the evidence was low overall and did not allow them “to state that fluoride is associated with neurological damage,” even at relatively high doses.
Another meta-analysis, published in 2023 in Environmental Research, did conclude that studies indicated fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ in children, potentially starting at 1 mg per liter or lower. But the researchers also noted problems with the quality of the studies that had been done, finding that those showing the greatest negative impact of fluoride were at a high risk of bias. Bias occurs when there is some systematic error that leads a study’s findings to be incorrect — such as confounding factors that would make a relationship seem real when it is not. The single study found to be at low risk of bias did not find a negative effect of fluoride on IQ.
Finally, a study published in the journal Public Health in 2023, which only evaluated studies in which people were exposed to levels of fluoride 1.5 mg per liter and lower, did not identify a relationship between fluoride levels and IQ in various analyses. “These meta-analyses show that fluoride exposure relevant to community water fluoridation is not associated with lower IQ scores in children,” the researchers concluded.
The Stakes of Ending Fluoridation
In the case against the EPA, lawyers are not allowed to discuss the benefits of water fluoridation. But amid calls to halt fluoridation, experts told us, a discussion of the potential impacts is warranted.
Lindsay McLaren, a professor of community health sciences at the University of Calgary, looked at what happened after the city of Calgary stopped fluoridating its water in 2011. She also has reviewed other research on the impacts of stopping fluoridation. (Calgary will resume water fluoridation later this year.)
“At least in the settings that have been studied, if you cease community water fluoridation, children’s oral health declines,” McLaren said. This particularly affects children who do not have good access to dental care.
“Tooth decay is not an innocuous problem,” McLaren said. “It causes pain, it can get infected, it can make it so that it hurts to eat, kids might have trouble concentrating in school.” She added that in extreme cases tooth decay can lead young children to need surgery under general anesthesia, which comes with known risks.
“The reason why we put fluoride in water is because it has a demonstrable positive impact on dental health,” Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine, told us. In addition to reducing cavities and improving overall dental health, it “has downstream effects as well because bad dental health can cause general health problems, heart disease, etc,” he said. Novella has written about anti-fluoride claims for many years on his blog and on the website Science-Based Medicine, which he founded.
Novella said that while data indicate potential neurotoxicity from fluoride at high doses, fluoridation at recommended levels “hasn’t been shown to be an actual risk in the real world.”
“You have to show that it’s causing an unacceptable risk that’s greater than the benefit at the dose people are actually getting exposed to,” he said, which is not what the data shows.
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.
Could Michelle Obama be making a comeback to the White House — this time as president?
For years, conservative media has peddled the notion that the former first lady has presidential ambitions. As recent concerns about President Joe Biden’s age and fitness for office have grown and the November election nears, the rumor mill is back in action.
The theory suggests Biden will drop out or be forced out of the race and Michelle Obama will replace him as the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential nominee. The claims have gained prominence as pundits, leading politicians and podcast hosts amplify them.
The theory has roots in conspiracy theories about the Deep State. On Feb. 9, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick posted on X, “I’ve said for over a year many times that Joe Biden would not be on the ticket and Michelle Obama would be the likely nominee. It’s clear the Democrat deep state run by Barack Obama knew they had to take him down to give them a chance in November.”
Patrick posted the comments a day after Special Counsel Robert Hur released a report about Biden’s handling of classified documents and portrayed Biden as having a faulty memory, a potentially politically damaging characterization in a reelection year.
Conservative activist Benny Johnson also described the Obama theory during a Jan. 9 episode of his show with guest Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.
“There is a trend going around, a lot of whispers, that Joe Biden is there to survive through the primary season,” Johnson said. “So, there is no primary for the Democrats and nobody has a chance to run against Michelle Obama and nobody has a chance to actually run against whoever they have chosen. Then, then, you do the switcheroo in the spring.”
Greene responded, “I think it is very possible.” She also called Biden’s presidency “(Barack) Obama’s third term” and said of the former first lady: “She owns Joe Biden’s policies. She owns the Biden administration. She owns the failure. She owns the Green New Deal. She owns the inflation. She owns the wide-open border.”
PolitiFact contacted Michelle Obama’s office. Her spokesperson declined to comment and referred us to recent news articles that show Michelle Obama dispelling the theory.
Since 2012, Michelle Obama has repeatedly denied rumors that she will run for the presidency. No publicly available information supports the claim that she will run for president.
Keneshia Grant, a Howard University associate political science professor, said Michelle Obama might be a target of this speculation because of partisan political panic.
“It might be that people who have this worry would like for Trump to win, and they are trying to think about maybe the one person who might be able to beat Donald Trump,” she said, “and they think that this is the one person who could do it.”
Public figures amplify the claim
Greene and Texas’ Patrick were the most recent in a line of current and former politicians and political candidates making similar comments:
Last September, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speculated, “In August of 2024, the Democrat kingmakers (will) jettison Joe Biden and parachute in Michelle Obama.”
Sarah Palin, former Republican vice presidential nominee and former Alaska governor, wrote on X last September, “Don’t be surprised. But I still say it’ll be Michelle O’ #2024Election. Biden’s out.”
Speaking on Fox News this month after the release of Hur’s report, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said, “I do think what they are planning for is to sideline Biden as the nominee, trod in a different puppet. Which is what leads me to the likely conclusion that it is going to be someone like Michelle Obama.”
No one making the claim has presented any evidence to support it. And Biden has rebutted notions that he’s unable to continue in the job.
Some social media claims go even further, invoking the longstanding, racially charged conspiracy theory that Michelle Obama is a man and would be the first transgender nominee or president.
When Barack Obama posted Feb. 14 on X wishing Michelle a happy Valentine’s Day, one person responded, “Raise your hand if you think Michelle should run for president!” with a meme that said “Michelle Obama ‘24.” In response to the meme, another person wrote, “Oh, I think its fantastic idea. First fully (diversity, equity and inclusion) president. Black, gay AND trans!!”
Michelle Obama has long denied a desire to run for president
When a student asked in 2012 whether Michelle Obama would consider running for president, she said “absolutely not.”
“One of the things you learn about yourself as you get older are what are your strengths and what are your interests, and for me, it’s other stuff, that is not being the president,” Obama said.
In 2016, as speculation grew again, then-President Barack Obama dismissed the notion that his wife would take over the White House. “Let me tell you, there are three things that are certain in life. Death, taxes, and Michelle is not running for president.”
In 2017, Michelle Obama dismissed the speculation: “I wouldn’t ask my children to do this again, because when you run for higher office, it’s not just you. It’s your whole family.”
In 2022, when asked in a BBC interview whether there is any question she detests, Obama said there was. It’s, “Are you going to run for president?”
“No I am not,” she said.
In 2023, she told Oprah Winfrey (who has also repeatedly denied rumors about running for president), “I have never expressed any interest in politics. Ever.”
As the recent rumors surfaced, David Alexrod, a close friend of the Obamas, told CNN, “She is not someone who likes politics … I have as much chance of dancing in the Bolshoi Ballet next year.”
As first lady, Michelle Obama was highly visible to voters but sat outside the divisive partisan environment. This afforded her a unique national name recognition and popularity among voters.
“That she is not a politician is exactly why she is popular,” Howard University’s Grant said. “She is a person who we know, a person who we trust but a person who doesn’t have the baggage of previous political statements or political decisions.”
In a January interview with podcast host Jay Shetty, Obama said she was “terrified” about the upcoming 2024 election and what it could mean for democracy as Donald Trump appears to be closing in on the GOP nomination. But Obama did not say she was motivated to run for office.
The unlikely road for Michelle Obama to become the 2024 Democratic nominee
Even if Michelle Obama were to express interest in the presidency, many other logistical things would have to fall into place for her candidacy to become a reality — such as the Democratic ticket having a vacancy.
If there is a vacancy prior to the August Democratic convention in Chicago, the delegates Biden has amassed during the primaries could decide to give their votes to a candidate whose political philosophy is similar to Biden’s. For that candidate to be Michelle Obama, that would mean she would have to declare an interest in being chosen. Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, Biden’s remaining Democratic challenger, could make a pitch to delegates to back him instead.
If the vacancy occurs between the convention and election day, the Democratic National Committee has the power to name a presidential nominee — likely (but not mandated) to be Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris. The chairperson of the DNC, Jaime Harrison, was selected for the job by Biden. If Harris were elevated to the presidential slot, the DNC would also name a vice presidential nominee.
Senior Correspondent Louis Jacobson and Staff Writer Marta Campabadal Graus contributed to this story.
RELATED: What happens if Joe Biden or Donald Trump leaves his party’s ticket?
A January Fox News segment promoted the bubbling conspiracy theory that singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is a government operative whose mission is bolstering President Joe Biden’s reelection chances. Now a poll shows a significant percentage of Americans are buying the false claim.
Monmouth University Polling Institute’s mid-February survey of 902 adults found that nearly 1 in 5 Americans believed the Swift-psyop theory. The telephone polling overlapped with the Feb. 11 Super Bowl in Las Vegas, which Swift attended to watch her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs star Travis Kelce.
“Even many who hadn’t heard about it before we polled them accept the idea as credible,” Patrick Murray, the Monmouth pollster who directed the survey, said in an announcement about the poll results. It has “legs among a decent number of Trump supporters.”
The poll results drew significant media attention. But as fact-checkers, we had questions. How meaningful is any poll when asking about a conspiracy theory? How much room do poll respondents have to fill in the blanks about how far the conspiracy stretches? And could support for the theory simply be standing in for disdain for Biden, Swift or both?
In January, The New York Times reported that unnamed Biden aides were dreaming of a Swift endorsement. (Swift endorsed Biden in 2020.) But there is no evidence that Biden or his allies are manipulating government resources to produce a renewed endorsement this year.
“A lot more research would have to be done to tease apart all of the contributors to support for the Swift covert ops conspiracy,” said Jesse H. Rhodes, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst political scientist and co-director of the UMass poll. “I think the main point is that there are many contributors to apparent support for this conspiracy, and not all of them reflect genuine, heartfelt endorsement of the conspiracy (theory) itself.”
The poll found largely Republicans believed the Swift-Biden theory
In the Monmouth poll, respondents were asked whether they had heard of Swift (only 5% had not) and, if so, whether they viewed her favorably or unfavorably (39% favorable, 13% unfavorable and the balance no opinion). The poll also asked whether they considered themselves hard-core “Swifties” (only 6%). Respondents were also asked their view on Swift encouraging people to vote in the presidential election (68% approved).
Later in the poll, 46% of respondents said they had heard of the theory that Swift is part of a covert government effort to help Joe Biden win.
Then the pollsters asked, “Do you think that a covert government effort for Taylor Swift to help Joe Biden win the presidential election actually exists, or not?” The poll did not define that alleged “covert government effort” and did not ask respondents follow-up questions that would clarify their views about such theory.
About 1 in 5 – 18% – said yes. About 71% of those who believed this identify with or lean toward the Republican Party and 83% said they are likely to support Donald Trump in the fall, the polling institute said. The poll had a sampling margin of error of about plus or minus 4 percentage points, meaning that results like the 18% figure could be from four points lower to four points higher.
Paradoxically, 42% of poll respondents who said the conspiracy exists also said they had not heard about it before Monmouth’s pollsters asked them about it.
A segment of the population may be primed to believe in various conspiracy theories
Previous polling has shown that a nontrivial segment of the American public believes in conspiracy theories.
Monmouth polling from 2018 found that a majority said the “Deep State,” a purported group of unelected government and military officials who secretly direct or manipulate national policy, “probably” or “definitely” exists. In 2010, PolitiFact gave a Pants on Fire to the claim supported by 18% of the population, that then-President Barack Obama was Muslim, a finding a Pew Research Center poll had recently recorded.
Murray said that, in any polling, some respondents give an answer that “aligns with a pre-existing attitudinal pattern.” However, the Swift psyop theory offers especially strong evidence of that.
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents who had preexisting knowledge of the story, Murray said, 42% said the conspiracy exists.
Also, nearly three-quarters (73%) of poll respondents who said they believed the theory about Swift also said they believed the 2020 election outcome was fraudulent. PolitiFact has repeatedly debunked statements that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged or that Biden’s win was illegitimate.
“There always seems to be a segment of the public that believes in conspiracy theories,” said Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. “I’ve always wondered if people who answer these questions are true believers, soft believers, or are just teasing the pollsters. We don’t know how deeply people hold these beliefs.”
In a 2013 article, Bowman wrote that substantial survey data signaled that “skepticism about the federal government’s power and reach is deep. It seems that whenever pollsters use the words ‘government’ and ‘cover-up,’ a substantial number respond in the affirmative.”
The University of Massachusetts’ Rhodes agreed that suspicions of the federal government are widespread, pointing to persistent conspiracy theories about President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“The Swift covert op conspiracy shares characteristics of other conspiracy theories in that it features a narrative of powerful actors using shadowy methods to shape politics and manipulate the public,” Rhodes said. “Because the Swift conspiracy partakes of narrative forms common to conspiracy theories in general, people who tend to believe in conspiracy theories might gravitate to this one.”
Could the Swift conspiracy reflect anti-Biden sentiment more than the conspiracy itself?
Rhodes suggested that some respondents may not believe the conspiracy theory’s specifics but said they agreed with it because they distrust the government or dislike Biden or Swift.
“This conspiracy theory is a way of expressing negative sentiment toward Biden, Swift, the federal government, or all of the above,” said Rhodes, who said social scientists call this phenomenon “expressive responding.’
Other poll respondents could have said they believe the theory because they were reacting to a sentiment shared on conservative media that coverage of Swift and Kelce shifted the Super Bowl focus away from football.
“There are many contributors to apparent support for this conspiracy, and not all of them reflect genuine, heartfelt endorsement of the conspiracy itself,” Rhodes said.
Also playing into support for the Swift conspiracy theory could be sentiment that celebrities should stay out of politics, Bowman said. A recent Economist/YouGov poll showed that 48% of respondents want Taylor Swift to not speak publicly about politics.
RELATED: What could a Taylor Swift endorsement mean for voter turnout in the 2024 election?
RELATED: Taylor Swift: Singer, songwriter, psyop? How conservative pundits spread a wild theory
The available evidence suggests Joe Biden and Donald Trump will face each other for the presidency in November.
They are 81 and 77 years old, respectively. Trump is facing up to four criminal trials that could theoretically land him in prison. Also, some states are trying to keep Trump off their ballots for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, although the Supreme Court seems unlikely to let the states do that.
So,, what happens if one of the major party’s presidential tickets opens up before inauguration day?
It depends heavily on timing.
“The process to replace a nominee, presumptive or otherwise, gets less messy the closer it gets to the convention,” said Josh Putnam, a political scientist specializing in delegate selection rules and founder of the political consulting company FHQ Strategies LLC. The Republican convention is scheduled for Milwaukee in mid-July; the Democratic convention is slated for Chicago in late August.
Complicating matters for the Republicans is that Trump’s trial schedules are in flux, except for the New York trial over alleged hush-money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, which is set to begin March 25.
Here’s a rundown of potential scenarios.
Democratic nominee Dean Phillips? Not so fast. (Louis Jacobson/PolitiFact)
During the primary process
The primary process has started for both parties. Most states have a primary to allocate delegates to each party’s national convention, at which the presidential nominee is formally selected. In a few states, parties opt instead for caucuses, which are typically in-person gatherings rather than ballots cast at polling places or through the mail.
So far, only a few states have allocated delegates. Officially, the primaries run through June, although the single biggest haul of delegates, a collection of contests known as Super Tuesday, will run March 5. One candidate from each party could have enough delegates to mathematically seal their nominations by the end of March.
Neither Biden nor Trump has the field to themselves yet. The most prominent opponent Biden faces is Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota; Trump continues to spar with former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
Nevertheless, Biden and Trump are considered overwhelming favorites to secure their parties’ nominations.
For both parties’ candidates, amassing delegates now helps secure their power and, if they are off the ticket, their legacy.
“Trump is attempting to get through all of the primary season in order to snatch up as many delegates as possible to buttress his case against being replaced,” Putnam said. “The more delegate slots a candidate like Biden or Trump is able to fill lends some certainty to who the delegates who will vote on a nominee at the national convention will be.”
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 7 in Big Bend, Wis., on Jan. 22, 2024. (AP)
The period between the end of primaries and the start of conventions
After the primary season is effectively over and before the the party conventions finish, delegates would play the decisive role if a nominee leaves the ticket. All told, the Republicans will have about 2,400 delegates; the Democrats will have around 4,700. The GOP will meet July 15-18; the Democrats will meet Aug. 19-22.
If Biden or Trump couldn’t proceed with the nomination during the pre-convention period, candidates left standing, such as Haley for the Republicans, could argue that their second-place finish justifies making them the nominee. But this argument would hardly be a slam dunk, because the delegates allocated during the primary process could choose someone else with wider support within the party.
“Trump-selected delegates are likely to settle on someone in the Trump vein, rather than someone like Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley,” Putnam said. “A lively debate could take place among those vying for the nomination at the convention, but it may occur in a narrow ideological band.”
Similarly, the delegates Biden collected and appointed would likelier back a Biden-style establishment Democratic nominee than a more liberal option. This is especially true because a portion of Democratic delegates are known as “superdelegates” who earn their status from holding an elected or appointed position within the party. Historically, superdelegates are assumed to prefer establishment candidates rather than insurgents.
Biden could amass the majority of delegates and then, on the eve of the convention, forgo running and urge his delegates to vote for a candidate he chooses or follow their consciences.
Any vacancy that leaves an unsettled convention, rather than one that’s carefully choreographed, as has been standard in recent decades, could become a political show for the ages, with furious backroom lobbying to secure delegate support.
If Biden were to die in office (or be made to relinquish the presidency because of incapacity under the 25th Amendment), Vice President Kamala Harris would become the incumbent president. In this scenario, it would be hard to envision Democratic delegates blocking her from the nomination, but it’s possible.
Vice Presidential candidate Sargent Shriver with Sen. Thomas Eagleton, the man he replaced on the Democratic ticket, on Sept. 7, 1972 at St. Louis airport. (AP)
Between the end of the convention and Election Day
If Biden or Trump were approved as the nominee at the convention but had to leave the ticket before Election Day, the parties would follow different rules.
On the Democratic side, the rules empower the Democratic National Committee to name a replacement. The Democrats would not have to name the vice presidential running mate as the replacement atop the ticket, but it would be considered the most likely option. That would make Harris the nominee, assuming she wanted to.
If Harris were elevated, the same process would determine the new vice presidential nominee. This happened in 1972, when the DNC named Sargent Shriver as the vice presidential nominee after Missouri Sen. Thomas Eagleton left the ticket following revelations about his mental health.
The Republican rules are murkier. A reconvening of the national convention is possible, but the Republican National Committee could probably find an alternative mechanism, Putnam said. Regardless, “it would not be as clean or as clear a move as the process on the Democratic side,” Putnam said.
An additional complication for both parties is that delegates are allocated by primary and caucus results, but the candidate who wins them still must officially name the people to fill those delegate slots. That takes time and it’s possible that not all delegate slots would be filled by the time a nominee changed suddenly.
“State parties would be empowered to name those delegates in the absence of the two likely nominees,” Putnam said. “That arguably could lead to a more chaotic national convention.”
The completion of delegate selection with a convention of mostly Biden or Trump delegates “would tamp down on some of the crazier or messier outcomes,” he said.
President Gerald Ford congratulates newly confirmed Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, right, after he was sworn-in on the Senate floor on Dec. 19, 1974. (AP)
Between the election of a president and their inauguration
If a new president is elected but dies before inauguration, the duly elected vice president would become the next president. A new vice president to serve alongside the newly elevated president would need to be approved by the Senate and the House, as happened when Congress approved Nelson Rockefeller after Gerald Ford took over for Richard Nixon, who had resigned amid the Watergate scandal.
In the case of an incumbent president who won another term, such as Biden if he wins this fall, Harris would become president immediately because she is an incumbent, too.
There’s still room for more wackiness. According to The Washington Post, if the winner dies between when the electoral votes are cast and when Congress counts them Jan. 6, 2025, it’s not entirely clear what would happen, even for the National Archives and Records Administration, whose job it is to know.
“We don’t know what would happen” in that scenario, the agency says on its website.
Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.
SciCheck Digest
Comedian Amy Schumer has said she’s having “some medical and hormonal” issues related to endometriosis that have affected her appearance. But some social media users are falsely claiming that Schumer announced she is suffering from a vaccine-related ailment. Schumer has said no such thing.
Full Story
Comedian Amy Schumer recently appeared on NBC’s “Tonight Show” and ABC’s “The View” to promote the new season of her Hulu show, “Life & Beth.”
Following those appearances, some social media users commented on her looks and speculated about her health.
Schumer responded in a Feb. 15 Instagram post reminding people that she has endometriosis — a painful condition in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus. The condition “may affect more than 11% of American women between 15 and 44,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
“There are some medical and hormonal things going on in my world right now but I’m okay,” Schumer explained.
Schumer also wrote, “[T]hank you so much for everyone’s input about my face! I’ve enjoyed feedback and deliberation about my appearance as all women do for almost 20 years. And you’re right it is puffier than normal right now.”
Despite her clear explanation, some social media posts have taken the speculation further, falsely claiming that Schumer “Says She Developed VAIDS After Third Booster.”
The claim is spreading as a screenshot meme that appears to have been taken from a website called ThaiMBC, which appears to post dubious news and health content along with articles about traveling to Thailand.
The pictures featured in the ThaiMBC post and in the social media memes show Schumer in a hospital gown. They were taken from a Sept. 18, 2021, post to Schumer’s Instagram account after she had her uterus removed due to endometriosis.
So, the pictures shown in the posts have nothing to do with vaccination, and Schumer has made no such statement about vaccine-related illness.
In fact, “VAIDS,” the ailment mentioned in the posts, doesn’t even exist.
“There is no phenomenon that I know of ‘Vaccine-induced immunodeficiency syndrome.’ It is not a real syndrome,” Donna Farber, chief of the division of surgical sciences and professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, told Reuters.
Similarly, Dr. Stephen Gluckman, a professor of infectious diseases in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, told the outlet, “VAIDS” is “absolutely not” a real condition.
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
Schumer, Amy (@amyschumer). “At midnight tonight! Binge both full seasons of @lifeandbethhulu and thank you so much for everyone’s input about my face! I’ve enjoyed feedback and deliberation about my appearance as all women do for almost 20 years. And you’re right it is puffier than normal right now. I have endometriosis an auto immune disease that every woman should read about. There are some medical and hormonal things going on in my world right now but I’m okay. Historically women’s bodies have barely been studied medically compared to men. The book “all in her head” does a good job explaining this. I also believe a woman doesn’t need any excuse for her physical appearance and owes no explanation. But I wanted to take the opportunity to advocate for self love and acceptance of the skin you’re in. Like every other women/person some days I feel confident and good as hell and others I want to put a bag over my head. But I feel strong and beautiful and so proud of this tv show I created. Wrote. Starred in and directed. Maybe just maybe we can focus on that for a little. I had backup dancers on Fallon but my face is the headline hahaha anyway I hope you enjoy life and Beth. Love and solidarity. Amy.” Instagram. 15 Feb 2024.
World Health Organization. Endometriosis. 24 Mar 2023.
Schumer, Amy (@amyschumer). “If you have really painful periods you may have #endometriosis.” Instagram. 18 Sep 2021.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “COVID-19 State of Vaccine Confidence Insights Report.” 28 Mar 2022.
Reuters. “‘VAIDS’ is not a real vaccine-induced syndrome, experts say; no evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause immunodeficiency.” 14 Feb 2022.
