Category: Fact Check

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Former President Donald Trump has cited more energy production, specifically drilling for oil and natural gas, as the key to bringing down energy prices, and inflation overall. He promises to “cut energy prices in half within 12 months” of taking office.

“We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said in Detroit on Oct. 18. “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months. … Cut them in half within 12 months of taking office. That’s going to bring everything down.”

It’s a standard refrain in many of Trump’s speeches. “We have tremendous wealth in this country, but it’s under our feet. It’s called liquid gold. And we’re going to bring down your energy costs. And, with that, everything’s going to follow,” he said at an Oct. 16 town hall on Fox News, in response to a question about his “plans to revitalize the economy.”

Economists and energy experts say that increasing the supply of oil and natural gas could bring down prices in the short term, if demand remains the same, but there are several complicating factors to Trump’s plan. The price of oil is set on a global market, subject to global supply and demand, and world events. Both U.S. and world producers react to those prices, shying away from producing more if the price is low. Experts we interviewed also didn’t see a way for Trump to lower energy prices for consumers by 50%.

When President Joe Biden encouraged oil companies to produce more in 2022, experts told us there was no quick fix for the supply crunch then — caused by the economic downturn during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gasoline prices rose as demand returned to pre-pandemic levels, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine further increased prices. Since then, gasoline and oil prices have come down.

The national average price of regular gasoline was just over $5 per gallon in the week ending June 13, 2022, but the latest price is down to $3.14 — 77 cents higher than week before Biden took office.

The Consumer Price Index for household energy, a measure of inflation for items used to heat, cool and power households, has gone up 29% under Biden, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As with inflation overall, the CPI for household energy has moderated greatly since 2022 and early 2023. The measure is up 2.4% for the 12 months ending in September.

U.S. oil production has hit record levels. In 2023, the U.S. averaged more than 12.9 million barrels per day, higher than the previous record of more than 12.3 million barrels in 2019, according to Energy Information Administration data. The EIA projected that would rise to an average of 13.2 million barrels per day for 2024.

Trump wants that production to go much higher.

Trump’s Energy Policies

Trump’s proposals call for more domestic production of fossil fuels, and the rollback of regulations and renewable energy incentives.

In Michigan in late August, Trump said he could cut consumers’ energy costs by 50%, adding, “we can do that if you have the oil supply, which we have more than anybody. Your heating and air conditioning, electricity, gasoline all can be cut down in half. … To achieve this rapid reduction in energy costs, I will declare a national emergency to allow us to dramatically increase energy production, generation and supply. … Starting on Day 1, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refiners, new power plants, new reactors, and we will slash the red tape.”

Trump’s campaign website says he will speed up the approval of drilling permits and leases; fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; stop environmental litigation; provide tax relief to oil, gas and coal companies; and rollback emissions regulations adopted under Biden, among other measures.

We asked the Trump campaign for support for his claim that he can lower consumers’ energy bills by half in one year, but we haven’t received a response. Last month, CNBC reported that the campaign referred it to David Bernhardt, who was interior secretary under Trump. “The president can expand access to various areas of development,” CNBC quoted Bernhardt as saying. “He can increase the number of lease sales. He can do a great deal to expedite the processing of applications with permits to drill, which have been significantly delayed over time.”

Trump’s promise has included some false and misleading claims. He often says the U.S. has “more liquid gold under our feet than any other country,” but there are several countries with more estimated oil and natural gas reserves. Experts on energy at the Brookings Institution wrote this summer that “U.S. oil reserves rank somewhere between ninth and 11th, depending on whom you ask. (Estimating reserves is an inexact science and methodologies differ.) The United States ranks fourth or fifth in the world in natural gas reserves.”

Trump also says the U.S. “will quickly become energy independent” if he is elected. But by Trump’s definition of the term, the U.S. has remained “energy independent” under Biden’s administration.

As we’ve explained before, the U.S. still imported energy, including crude oil, when Trump was in office. By “independent,” he likely means the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed or exported more than it imported. But that’s still the case under Biden.

What Experts Say About More Drilling to Lower Prices

Experts we interviewed said increasing the domestic supply of oil and natural gas — if worldwide demand stayed constant — could lower prices, at least somewhat or for a short period of time. But ramping up the supply is a decision oil and gas companies have to make, and they wouldn’t be inclined to produce more for a lower price. And even if they could be incentivized to produce more oil and gas for less in profit, international producers would react to the increased U.S. supply by pulling back on their production.

Sanjay Patnaik, director of the Center on Regulation and Markets and a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told us there was a “really low likelihood that drilling for more oil … would lower prices,” because those prices are set at the world market. “Any additional production we have would go to the world market, and then it depends on the demand.”

Natural gas is more localized, Patnaik said, and could in theory have more of an impact on prices. Natural gas is either in a pipeline or shipped overseas as liquefied natural gas. More natural gas production, he said, would be expected to lower prices, “but if I’m a producer, I wouldn’t increase production much because it would hurt my profits.” For exported LNG, there would need to be demand abroad, and new facilities would need to be constructed.

“Yes, all else equal, more energy production in the U.S. would reduce prices overall,” Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told us in an email. Oil prices, though, “are difficult to move because they are established by global supply and demand,” he said. “But it’s true that additional production in the U.S. would put downward pressure on global prices.”

And energy prices do affect the price of other goods. “Significant reductions in the cost of all energy resources would mitigate overall price increases because energy is a costly input into nearly every good and service sold,” Fisher said.

Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a nonresident senior research fellow at the Center for Climate & Security, told us in an email that “on margin, increased US oil and gas production would lower prices,” but he, too, said that oil is a global commodity. A large increase in U.S. production “would have effects for other producers, driving higher cost ones into dormancy. This is truer for oil than gas, the market for which is more segmented.”

Since oil and gas “are widely traded, it’s very difficult to lower prices unilaterally through increased US production,” Hendrix said. “[I]t might work over the short-term (and that’s still doubtful), but over the medium and longer terms markets would adjust accordingly. Sustained low prices typically only come when there’s a massive surplus in markets due to demand cratering. The conditions that would have to come about for that to happen to bring about the targeted prices are simply not at all likely to materialize.”

Experts also pointed out that the U.S. doesn’t have state-run oil and gas companies, like some other countries do, limiting the ability of a president to get companies to increase production. “The US is not Saudi Arabia or Russia: the president just doesn’t have the policy levers to control oil output and prices to these extents,” Hendrix said.

Presidents either want the credit or get the blame for oil and gas prices, but those prices are “largely out of the hands of the presidency,” Patnaik said. “It’s a very complex economic picture. Not easy to untangle.”

A president could open up more federal land for drilling, but it would take some time for new oil or gas drilling to be operational — and the market dynamics could change in the interim, changing the profit incentive for producers.

That’s what experts told us in 2022, when we fact-checked Biden’s claim that oil producers could simply increase supply with approved but unused federal permits to bring down prices. “New production takes time. For in-fill shale oil or gas wells in areas that are already being developed, you might get some new drilling and production in a matter of months. Any new leases would take years to produce,” Samantha Gross, director of the Energy Security and Climate Initiative and a fellow in foreign policy at Brookings, told us.

Similar to what we heard from other experts, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks fuel prices, told NPR on Sept. 22 that “ultimately, it’s at oil companies’ whims if they’d like to increase production or not. And should oil prices decline to the point the president likes, it would be at a point where many oil companies are losing money on every barrel.”

Even if Trump could get companies to drill more, oil producers and other countries would respond to that increased supply so that prices wouldn’t decline too much, De Haan said. “And countries outside of the U.S. – like OPEC countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia – would likely offset any increase in U.S. production by cutting their own. … Whether U.S. oil producers or foreign oil producers, nobody’s going to be profitable at $35 a barrel, which is roughly half of where oil prices stand today.”

In a Sept. 4 article, the Wall Street Journal quoted experts expressing many of these same doubts about a president easily increasing production and lowering energy prices. Oil producers, the story said, “are more focused on returning cash to shareholders than on growing production.”

As for Trump’s promise to cut consumer energy prices by 50%, Patnaik said he hadn’t seen any studies backing that up. He said it was “quite unlikely to me,” particularly in the short term.

Hendrix said, “My net-net is that Trump would not be able to deliver on this promise unless the global economy craters, the US cuts itself off from global energy markets, and US producers are convinced to produce at price levels that would not sustain operations.”

Fisher told us that “[e]lectricity prices are notoriously hard to bring down, in part because policies at both the state and federal level are putting significant upward pressure on them.” He said if Trump promised to nullify federal policies that could increase future electricity prices, “I would view that as a workable policy. But I see no way for policy reforms at the federal level to reduce today’s electricity bills by half.”

The annual average monthly residential electric bill in the U.S. has gone up from about $117 in 2020 to $138 in 2023, an increase of 18%. That’s in nominal terms, meaning not adjusted for inflation, and the bulk of the increase occurred from 2021 to 2022. Last year, the average bill rose 2%, lower than inflation and “in line with the 2% average annual increase over the past decade,” according to a report from the EIA.

Electric bills vary by state, from an average $87 per month in Utah last year to $213 in Hawaii.

In describing his promise to lower energy costs, Trump also has pointed to low gas prices during his term, citing a figure of $1.87 per gallon. Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly — and misleadingly — boasted of getting gasoline down to that level. But prices like that came early in the COVID-19 pandemic, when global demand fell as people stayed home and businesses closed. Gasoline hit a low of $1.77 the week of April 27, 2020.

“The $1.87 gas price Trump has targeted came in the context of the worst global pandemic and recession since the Great Depression. Unless he’s planning on delivering a massive recession like that – and I’m sure he’s not – it would be impossible to drive US production high enough to hit that target in the short (one-year) run, in addition to being economically self-defeating,” Hendrix said.

When Trump left office, gasoline was $2.38 a gallon, as the economy was still recovering.

---

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. 

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

To address increased food and grocery prices, Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign has promised to enact a federal ban on price gouging. In an Aug. 16 press release, the campaign vowed to “go after bad actors to bring down Americans’ grocery costs and keep inflation in check.” 

The Harris campaign’s proposal arrives amid heightened concerns from voters regarding the cost of living. On Aug. 21, Ipsos reported that “50% of Americans now say inflation is a top concern for their country.” While the rate at which grocery prices have increased has slowed in recent months (including only a 1.3% rise over the last year), the price of “food at home” has still increased by 21.6% since the start of President Joe Biden’s term in January 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Harris blames the surge in food prices, in part, on corporate price gouging. At an Oct. 23 town hall event on CNN, she said, “Companies are taking advantage of the desperation and the need of the American people — we saw it, actually during the pandemic as well, where, because of supply chain issues, there was a reduction of supply, and then they would inflate the price of everyday necessities.”

But economists primarily blame the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions and rising labor costs, among other reasons, for inflation.

Asked to evaluate the anti-price gouging proposal, economists gave us mixed responses — some believed a federal price gouging ban could be an effective tool to restrain food costs during emergencies, while others argued the reform would create supply shortages. However, the economists we interviewed largely agreed that on its own, the Harris campaign’s proposal would have little to no effect on current grocery prices.

What Harris Proposes

During a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Aug. 16, Harris told voters, “I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging.” She continued, “My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules, and we will support smaller food businesses that are trying to play by the rules and get ahead.” Opposition to price gouging has since become a central aspect of the Harris campaign. Bloomberg reported on Oct. 16 that “Harris ads mentioning price gouging have aired at least 175,000 times on broadcast, cable and online.”

In the August press release, the Harris campaign proposed to “work with Congress” to “set clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries.” To enforce the price gouging ban, the Harris campaign promised to “secure new authority for the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] and state attorneys general to investigate and impose strict new penalties on companies that break the rules.”

Harris’ campaign website states that her policy would “build on the anti-price gouging statutes already in place in 37 states.” These 37 state-level anti-price gouging laws largely function by banning firms from significantly increasing the price of essential goods during disasters or states of emergency. When we spoke to the Harris campaign, a representative confirmed that the anti-price gouging proposal is specifically meant to curtail price increases during emergency situations. 

The Harris campaign elaborated on its proposal in an 82-page economic policy plan published on Sept. 25. The document describes that Harris would “go after nefarious price gouging on essential goods during emergencies or times of crisis,” and cites statutes in Texas, North Carolina, New York and Florida as examples of current anti-price gouging laws.

However, thus far the campaign has provided limited details on the exact mechanisms or parameters of its anti-price gouging proposal. Importantly, many states differ in how they define price increases that constitute “gouging.” For example, Delaware implemented an anti-price gouging law “during the COVID-19 recovery period” that banned price increases above 10% of previous sale prices unless the additional costs were justified, while Pennsylvania’s statute set the price gouging threshold at 20%. Harris’ home state of California also has an anti-price gouging law that bans companies from increasing prices by more than 10% relative to their price before a declared state of emergency, given that the company’s production costs do not significantly increase.

Conversely, Florida’s statute instead defines an “unconscionable” price increase as “a gross disparity” between prices during a state of emergency and average prices over the previous 30 days without offering a specific benchmark. 

Additionally, in an article published by the American Bar Association, litigator Patricia Conners said state statutes differ significantly in the types of goods protected by anti-price gouging laws. “In some states and territories, the statutes apply across the board to all products and services,” she wrote. “Others apply to products and services considered ‘necessities,’ ‘essential,’ or ‘critical.’ Still others apply only to a single product or a handful of products deemed necessary to a consumer’s health and safety in an emergency, such as food, gasoline, and medical goods.” 

Conners also pointed out the significant variance in punishments against firms that violate price gouging laws depending on the state, with some states only enforcing civil fines and others imposing criminal penalties that could include prison sentences. 

The Harris campaign’s proposal could also potentially borrow ideas from the Price Gouging Prevention Act proposed in February by Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. This bill would “allow the FTC and state attorneys general to stop sellers from charging a grossly excessive price,” and require “public companies to transparently disclose and explain changes in their cost of goods sold, gross margins, and pricing strategies” during an “exceptional market shock.” No votes have been held on the bill.

Evaluations of the Proposal by Economists

The differences between existing state anti-price gouging laws, coupled with the Harris campaign’s lack of specific details on thresholds for enforcement and punishment, have led economists to disagree on how the proposed policy would affect firms and consumers. 

Dean Baker, senior economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a labor-focused think tank, told us in an email that he believes the policy could be “somewhat effective” as a deterrent. He argues that the policy would allow the federal government to report stores that significantly increase prices in response to emergencies, leading to “embarrassment and bad publicity that most stores would like to avoid.” Therefore, he concludes that the Harris campaign’s proposed policy would “work about as well as state policies do in disasters.”

Lindsay Owens, executive director at the left-leaning Groundwork Collective, expressed her approval of the Harris campaign’s proposal. “Having the ability to go after folks who use crises or exploit crises to run up the score on profits I think would be a useful tool to have going forward,” she stated. Owens, who was a top aide to liberal members of Congress, pointed out that while current state anti-price gouging laws cover much of the country, a federal policy could better regulate price gouging occurring through interstate commerce. 

Both Baker and Owens also noted that the policy would create relatively little additional regulatory cost. “By definition, we will not have many extraordinary situations, so we will not have a large standing group of enforcers ready to pounce if price gouging does occur,” Baker told us. Similarly, Owens said that because food prices are relatively transparent, regulators can monitor for potential price gouging “pretty easily.”

Conversely, other economists told us that the proposed policy would create more harm than good by distorting supply markets and creating shortages.

Clifford Winston, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told us that intervening in free markets to constrain the prices firms could charge carries a “big risk,” even if the law only applies to emergency situations. He said firms are simply “responding to market forces” when they raise prices to match increased consumer demand during an emergency.

In a basic model without regulation, economists generally predict that an emergency situation will increase consumer demand for certain goods, raising their prices. The model predicts that these higher prices will incentivize firms to produce and sell more of these products, potentially offsetting the initial supply shortage. However, Winston said that if firms cannot significantly raise their prices in response to rising demand, they may decide that it is no longer profitable for them to produce and transport additional products to the affected area, causing them to “cap supply.” As a result, he argued that a federal anti-price gouging law is “not the correct policy lever.”

Similarly, Harvard economic policy professor and former Obama administration economist Jason Furman told the New York Times in August, “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality … there’s no upside here, and there is some downside.” 

However, Baker pointed out that because Harris’ proposal likely only affects prices during emergencies, an anti-price gouging law would not create “long-term” supply distortions. While he agreed that “there will be shortages” during emergencies by “the nature of the problem,” he said that because firms do not plan “production around extreme events,” an anti-price gouging law would not induce lasting distortions in firm decision-making. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative-leaning American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, also told us that he believed an anti-price gouging law “would have a minimal impact” on the supply of goods.

Overall, many economists agree with Winston’s and Furman’s opposition to the anti-price gouging policy proposal. In a 2022 poll conducted by the University of Chicago, only 5% of economists supported a policy proposal to “make it unlawful for companies with revenues over $1 billion to offer goods or services for sale at an ‘unconscionably excessive price’ during an exceptional market shock,” with 65% expressing moderate or strong disagreement to the proposal. 

However, polling data indicate that voters support anti-price gouging laws at a much higher rate than economists. An August YouGov poll identified that 65% of voters supported Harris’ proposal of “capping increases on food and grocery prices,” with only 24% of voters opposing the proposed policy.

Potential Effects of Proposal on Grocery Prices

Economists consistently stated that the anti-price gouging proposal would have little effect on current grocery prices. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said on a Sept. 13 podcast that the emergency circumstances that would trigger anti-price gouging restrictions described in the proposal are “not what we’re observing now,” pointing to the relatively flat inflation rates for grocery prices in recent months. 

Sharing this skepticism during the same podcast, Moody’s economist Marisa DiNatale called the Harris campaign’s proposal a “political populist play to placate people’s ire over the fact that food prices are high.” Holtz-Eakin also told us that he believed the policy proposal would not affect current grocery prices.

Additionally, in many of the potential emergency situations that could activate a federal anti-price gouging law, existing state-level legislation already exists to limit firm price increases. For example, Florida and North Carolina, two states heavily impacted by Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, are among the 37 states that already have anti-price gouging laws. CNBC reported on Oct. 8 that the Florida attorney general expanded a statewide “price gouging hotline” enabling citizens to report illegal price increases during the hurricanes. It is unclear whether a federal anti-price gouging law under Harris may differ from Florida’s existing legislation.

Many economists are also dubious of the oft-cited argument by the Harris campaign that corporate profit-seeking is a key driver of inflation for groceries.

While progressive think tanks often blame inflation on rising corporate profits, a May 13 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco said economy-wide aggregate price markups, defined as the difference between a company’s prices and production costs, “stayed essentially flat during the post-pandemic recovery,” leading the authors to conclude that “markups were not a main driver of the post-pandemic surge in inflation.” Additionally, an April 2023 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that “tight labor market conditions have put upward pressure on wages and contributed to higher food production costs.” Corroborating these reports, Holtz-Eakin told us that cost pressures on firms were the “dominant factor” in increasing food prices, with corporate profit margins only being “a tiny part of the story.”

As we’ve written before, economists instead primarily blame rising inflation earlier during the Biden administration on the disruptions inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as supply shortages, labor market distortions and increased consumer spending on goods, as well as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

---

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. 

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

The Department of Defense issued a standard policy revision in September to existing procedures for the intelligence community. Some social media accounts have misrepresented the language and timing of the update to falsely claim the military has been newly authorized “To Use Lethal Force On Americans!!”

---

Full Story

The Department of Defense published an updated policy on intelligence gathering on Sept. 27.

The update didn’t add any new rules or expand military authority. It just described some existing policy from other, related protocols about the use of force.

But some conservative influencers have misrepresented the revised policy, claiming that it “NOW includes the legal use of lethal force against civilians by the military,” or that the “US military was just ‘authorized to kill Americans on US soil.’”

Others have gone in a decidedly political direction, claiming: “DoD quietly expands military powers just weeks before the 2024 election,” and “Biden & Harris Authorize Military To Use Lethal Force On Americans!!”

An analysis from the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public shows that by Oct. 16 there were thousands of posts and engagements on both mainstream and more niche social media platforms. On that date, there were more than 250 new posts per 12-hour period on “alternative tech” platforms, such as Truth Social and Rumble.

But the claims in those posts weren’t true.

The policy at issue is Department of Defense Directive 5240.01, which sets procedures to be followed by Defense Department intelligence workers. The U.S. has 18 different intelligence units and nine of them are within the Defense Department, including the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the intelligence offices for the various branches of the military.

“The previous revision of DoDD 5240.01 was issued on March 22, 2019,” Sue Gough, spokesperson for the Department of Defense, told us in an email. “Reissuing 5240.01 was part of normal business of the Department to periodically update guidance and policy.”

The procedure for reissuing policies like this involves five stages of development and review and takes at least six months, according to department instructions.

“The release was in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event,” Gough said.

Furthermore, the portion of the revised policy that’s the focus of most social media posts isn’t anything new.

Posts on this issue typically cite a paragraph specifying one of the situations in which the secretary of defense may approve a request for help from state or local law enforcement agencies.

The paragraph says the secretary may approve requests for (emphasis is ours): “Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated. Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.”

The phrases “potential for lethality” and “lethal force” are often emphasized in social media posts.

While that language is new to DoDD 5240.01, “it does not represent any change to DoD’s policy regarding the use of lethal force, which is addressed in DoDD 5210.56, ‘Arming and the Use of Force,’” Gough said. “The revised 5240.01 simply describes how this long-standing policy applies to the DoD intelligence community.”

The purpose of that directive, among other things, is to establish “policy and standards” for “the use of force by DoD personnel.” It sets guidelines for when and how to use “less than deadly force” and when it is justified to use “deadly force.”

The full policy on use of force within the Department of Defense can be seen here. All of the department’s published policies can be seen here.

While use of military personnel within the U.S. has been rare, there have been some instances. In 1992, for example, seven U.S. Marines responded to a domestic violence call with two police officers in Los Angeles during riots there. A Brennan Center for Justice report on the issue published Oct. 2 recommended reigning in presidential authority to summon troops domestically.

But the recently revised Defense Department policy hasn’t added any such authority.

“Speculation about this directive appears to have significant resonance across multiple communities as the November 5 election draws close,” the University of Washington analysis concluded. “This evolving rumor may have the potential to translate to calls for action or offline mobilization: the implication that the US military is gearing up to crack down on election-related civil unrest may prime certain audiences to prepare for violence or confrontation with law enforcement in the aftermath of the election.”

---

Sources

Department of Defense. Directive 5240.01. 27 Sep 2024.

University of Washington. Center for an Informed Public. “Rumors rapidly spreading about reissued Department of Defense Directive 5240.01.” 18 Oct 2024.

Congressional Research Service. “Defense Primer: National and Defense Intelligence.” 22 Apr 2024.

Department of Defense. Instruction 5025.01. 7 Jun 2023.

Gough, Sue. Spokesperson, U.S. Department of Defense. Email to FactCheck.org. 23 Oct 2024.

U.S. Department of Defense. Directive 5210.56. 18 Nov 2016.

Superville, Darlene, Tim Sullivan and Aaron Morrison. “Trump threatens military force against protesters nationwide.” Associated Press. 2 Jun 2020.

Schmitt, Eric, et al. “Esper Breaks With Trump on Using Troops Against Protesters.” New York Times. Updated 9 Nov 2020.

Nunn, Joseph. “Limiting the Military’s Role in Law Enforcement.” Brennan Center for Justice. 2 Oct 2024.

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

Dominion Voting Systems, which was the target of baseless conspiracy theories after the 2020 election, will be used by 27 states in the 2024 election. But some social media posts falsely claim Gov. Ron DeSantis said Dominion “will NOT operate in the state of Florida.” The Florida Department of State approved the use of Dominion equipment, which will be used in 18 counties.

---

Full Story

Dominion Voting Systems has been a target of election-related misinformation, as we’ve previously written.

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump pushed a baseless conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems had switched “thousands of votes” from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden and “deleted” millions of Trump votes, citing a report by One America News. A group of federal, state and local officials overseeing the nation’s voting system refuted such claims just hours after Trump tweeted them.

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees said in a joint statement. The statement described the 2020 election as “the most secure in American history.”

On April 18, 2023, Dominion Voting Systems settled a defamation lawsuit against Fox News for $787.5 million after alleging the news organization and some of its commentators spread lies about the company. Several months later, a Dominion executive settled a suit against One American News, but the terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

Dominion Voting Systems currently supplies election technology in 27 states and Puerto Rico and is “committed to ensuring the security of elections,” according to the company website. Dominion also maintains a fact-checking resource to address misinformation relating to the 2024 election.

But recent social media posts falsely claim that Dominion Voting Systems will not operate in Florida this November and mischaracterize Dominion ownership. 

One Threads user falsely claimed, “BREAKING: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says Dominion voting systems will NOT operate in the state of Florida.” 

A post on Instagram included this same allegation, plus additional misleading questions regarding Dominion ownership: “Who owns stock in Dominion voting systems? Do Congress members? Do past and current presidents? Do family members of government officials? Are the elections rigged by both sides of the aisle?”

Contrary to the claims on social media, Dominion Voting Systems will operate in Florida this election. And the company has “no ownership ties to … U.S. political party leaders,” the company website states. Dominion Voting Systems is a privately held company, meaning it is not traded on stock exchanges or legally required to report financial information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

As we’ve written, the private equity firm Staple Street Capital owns a roughly 76% stake in Dominion Voting Systems. John Poulos, the CEO of Dominion Voting Systems, owns 12% of the company, and the rest is owned by other members of the company’s leadership.

In an email to FactCheck.org, a Dominion Voting Systems spokesperson said, “Fact: Dominion systems are being used by voters across the State of Florida for the November 2024 election.”

“The company has thousands of customer jurisdictions spread across 27 states,” the spokesperson said.

The Florida Division of Elections had certified two voting systems and vendors as of March 4: Dominion Voting Systems and Election Systems & Software. According to a map posted to the division’s website, 18 Florida counties will use Dominion Voting Systems and 49 counties will use Election Systems & Software.

Voting systems must be approved by the Florida Department of State prior to use. The department only approves voting systems that comply with state law. For example, the system must accurately count votes and provide records “from which the operation of the voting system may be audited.” 

Following approval, the Florida Division of Elections explains on its website, “Voting system software is only issued to county Supervisors of Elections by the Florida Department of State through a ‘trusted build’ process — a secure and well-documented closed chain-of-custody process followed before, throughout, and after installation of new equipment or software.”

---

Sources

Robertson, Lori, et al. “Trump Repeats Baseless, False Claims About the Election.” FactCheck.org. 1 Dec 2020.

Rieder, Rem. “Trump Tweets Conspiracy Theory About Deleted Votes.” FactCheck.org. 12 Nov 2020. 

Fichera, Angelo. “Audit in Michigan County Refutes Dominion Conspiracy Theory.” FactCheck.org. 18 Dec 2020.

Sanger, David E., et al. “Election Officials Directly Contradict Trump on Voting System Fraud.” New York Times. 12 Nov 2020.

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. “Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees.” Press Release. 12 Nov 2020.

Folkenflik, David, and Mary Yang. “Fox News settles blockbuster defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems.” NPR. 18 Apr 2023.

Sneed, Tierney and Marshall Cohen. “Far-right network OAN settles 2020 election defamation suit brought by ex-Dominion executive.” 5 Sep 2023.

Dominion Voting Systems. “The Dominion Difference – We Deliver!” Accessed 24 Oct 2024.

Dominion Voting Systems. “Setting the Record Straight: Facts About Dominion.” Accessed 24 Oct 2024.

U.S. Government Publishing Office. “Dominion Voting Systems.” 11 Nov 2020.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “About.” 29 Jun 2024.

Dominion Voting Systems. “Dominion Voting Systems Acquired by its Management Team and Staple Street Capital.” PR Newswire. 16 Jul 2018.

Bloomberg. “Fox’s Dominion payout gives Staple Street Capital 1,500% return.” Pensions & Investments. 19 Apr 2023.

Florida Division of Elections. “Certified Voting Systems and Vendors.” 4 Mar 2024.

Florida Division of Elections. “Voting Systems in Florida by Vendor.” Feb 2024. 

Florida Division of Elections. “About Voting Systems.” 17 Feb 2023.

Online Sunshine. Accessed 24 Oct 2024.

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

National Guard troops have been activated during past elections to assist with cybersecurity, processing votes and potential protests. But social media posts have made the unsupported claim that former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for the National Guard “at every voting station and ballot counting facility” on Election Day.

---

Full Story

Ahead of Election Day in 2020, 16 states called on National Guard members to assist with election cybersecurity, processing votes and crowd control, in expectation of protests to the election outcome. National Guard troops had also been used in the 2016 and 2018 elections, when they helped defend the election system from hackers.

In October, former President Donald Trump advocated the deployment of the National Guard or the U.S. military on Election Day 2024 to address what he described as “the enemy from within” and “radical left lunatics.” Federal law prohibits the use of the federal military personnel as a domestic policing force, but the National Guard, under the command of state governors, is exempt.

Social media users now have made the unsupported claim that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also thinks the National Guard should be activated in every state on Election Day.

The claim was originally shared on X on Oct. 19, where it received nearly 700,000 views according to the platform. The post read, “BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Says, The National Guard should be deployed at every voting station and ballot counting facility to protect our elections.” The claim was posted on Threads by another user on Oct. 20.

Kennedy had been an independent candidate for president, but he suspended his campaign in August and endorsed Trump. In a speech to the National Guard Association, Trump said, “We’re very proud to welcome Bobby to our cause. He’s a really terrific guy.” Trump’s campaign later said Kennedy had joined the former president’s transition team.

But we haven’t been able to find any evidence that Kennedy made the statement in the social media posts or that he supports the deployment of National Guard troops to voting stations and ballot-counting centers.

The user who originally shared the claim to X has a history of fabricating quotes from Kennedy. On Oct. 21, the user quoted Kennedy as saying, “The 2020 Election was 100% stolen from Donald Trump.” But Kennedy has acknowledged President Joe Biden as the legitimate victor of the 2020 election.

In September, the same X account claimed that Kennedy called for Pride flags to be banned from government buildings. But we haven’t been able to find evidence that Kennedy made this statement, either. In the past, Kennedy has been supportive of marriage equality. In June 2023, while he was still campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, he said, “There will be nobody in the Oval Office who is more supportive of LGBQT rights.”

We reached out to Kennedy for comment on the social media posts, but we didn’t hear back.

---

Sources

Cooper, Jonathan J., et al. “RFK Jr. suspends his presidential bid and backs Donald Trump before appearing with him at his rally.” Associated Press. 23 Aug 2024.

Human Rights Campaign. Press release. “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Joins Calls for Marriage Equality in New York and Nationwide.” 27 Jan 2011.

Kim, Soo Rin, et al. “Trump adds RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to his transition team.” ABC. 27 Aug 2024.

Marsh, Rene. “Ohio taps National Guard to defend election system from hackers.” CNN. 1 Nov 2016.

Mistich, Dave. “States Turn To National Guard To Protect Future Elections From Hackers.” NPR. 11 Apr 2018.

Mitchell, Ellen. “Here’s where the National Guard is activated on Election Day.” The Hill. 3 Nov 2020.

National Guard Bureau. “National Guard will support election in multiple states.” 2 Nov 2020.

News Nation. “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defends support of LGBTQ rights | RFK Jr. Town Hall.” Video. 29 Jun 2023.

Nunn, Joseph. “The Posse Comitatus Act Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice. 14 Oct 2021.

Rev. “Trump Speaks at National Guard Conference in Detroit.” Transcript. 27 Aug 2024.

Stracqualursi, Veronica. “Trump suggests using military against ‘enemy from within’ on Election Day.” 14 Oct 2024.

Wells, Dylan, et al. “Where the 2024 candidates stand on elections, democracy and Jan. 6.” Washington Post. 23 Aug 2023.

Source

Quick Take

Crime statistics compiled by the FBI and other sources show an increase in violent crime, notably murders, in 2020 and a decline since. A revision to the FBI data this year doesn’t change that overall trend, despite claims made on social media and by the Trump campaign to the contrary.

---

Full Story

Local law enforcement agencies voluntarily report crime data to the FBI, which compiles the figures in annual reports on crime nationwide, with some estimation done when agencies don’t report figures for a full year, or at all. The annual figures for 2023, released last month, show a decline in violent crime since 2020 — the last year of former President Donald Trump’s administration.

In 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a spike in violent crime overall, due to increases in murders and aggravated assaults. Experts have said that the pandemic, and its economic repercussions, was one factor behind the increase. Violent crime has eased back down since then.

The number and rate per 100,000 population for violent crime overall, as well as for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, all went down from 2020 to 2023, according to the FBI-compiled statistics. The violent crime rate dropped by 22.5 points, the murder rate declined by 0.9 points. The number of murders decreased by 14.5%. (For these figures, see the Crime in the United States Annual Reports here and download the CIUS Estimations file for 2023. See Table 1.)

As we have reported, other sources of crime stats show the same trend. The Major Cities Chiefs Association reports, with the addition of New York City’s statistics, show a 9.1% decrease in the number of murders in 70 large U.S. cities from 2020 to 2023, and a further decline for the first half of 2024. As of early this month, AH Datalytics, an independent criminal justice data analysis group, reported a 17.9% decrease in murders in more than 250 U.S. cities so far this year, compared with the same points in 2023. 

“Violent crime rose in 2020 and has fallen since then though the rise in violent crime has always been more muted than people assume. Murder, by contrast, rose a ton in 2020 and is falling a ton right now,” Jeff Asher, co-founder of AH Datalytics, recently wrote in a Substack post.

Despite these trends, Trump and other Republicans have wrongly claimed throughout the campaign that violent crime has gone up under President Joe Biden. Trump has even claimed that the FBI statistics are “fake.”

Now, the campaign has seized on a yearly revision of the FBI figures. Revisions are routinely done every year, but this year’s were notable because they flipped what was a decline in violent crime from 2021 to 2022 in last year’s report to an increase. (Adam Gelb, president and CEO of the independent Council on Criminal Justice, told us this can happen with revisions, particularly when dealing with “low single-digit percentage point changes.”)

The Trump campaign says the revision is proof that Trump was “right,” and social media posts are falsely claiming the FBI data now reveal that crime has “skyrocketed” or “gone through the ROOF” under Biden.

Even with the revisions, however, the 2022 — and 2023 — figures for violent crime, and murder specifically, are lower than the figures for 2020.

At an Oct. 20 rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Trump took issue with ABC News fact-checking him during the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when Trump claimed that “crime in this country is through the roof.” ABC News moderator David Muir countered, “As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country.”

In Lancaster, Trump wrongly said, “No, no crime is way up. And the FBI, we have to look at this because the FBI put out charts that crime was down initially because they didn’t report certain little areas of the country like the worst areas in the country for crime, and it turned out that their stats were very wrong and very misleading. But he [Muir] was wrong because it was — it’s up like at least 45%.”

Muir wasn’t — and isn’t — wrong, though. The revised FBI figures still show that overall violent crime has come down since 2020, Trump’s last year in office. And they in no way show that crime is up 45%. (Trump often cites the National Crime Victimization Survey, a survey that asks people whether they had been victims of various crimes, though we didn’t see his 45% figure there. The survey has its own limitations, and it doesn’t measure murder, as we’ve explained.)

Trump’s description of how the FBI figures were revised is also off.

Revised Crime Figures

Here’s a comparison of the FBI figures reported last year and the revised figures released last month. As the charts show, while the revisions increased the rate of violent crime (and murder) in 2022, there was an even larger downward revision to the 2021 figures.

One social media post claimed that the FBI “found” 1,699 more murders in 2022, but that’s not the case. The FBI revised the number of murders in 2022 upward by 625, and it revised the 2021 total downward by 1,074.

There’s also reason to doubt, or not read too much into, the 2021 numbers, which, due to a change in methodology, had to be estimated a lot more than usual. That’s the year that had the problem Trump alluded to — fewer law enforcement agencies reporting figures. But the issue is unique to 2021.

Asher told us in a phone interview that the revised 2021 numbers are likely an undercount. AH Datalytics and other crime data sources found a slight increase in murders in 2021 from 2020, so it “doesn’t make a lot of sense” to see a decrease in the latest revision, he said.

As we’ve explained before, the FBI has been transitioning to a new system for data collection, and in 2021, it required local law enforcement agencies to use what’s called the National Incident-Based Reporting System. But at that time, many police departments, including those in New York and Los Angeles, hadn’t switched to NIBRS, so they weren’t included in the raw 2021 statistics. When releasing the 2021 figures initially, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided national estimates for 2021, but they were based on data that covered only about 65% of the population.

Before then — and after 2021 — the data reported by law enforcement agencies covered 90% or more of the population. For 2022 and 2023, participation in NIBRS increased, and the FBI also has accepted data submitted through the older system for agencies that haven’t made the switch. So, the low-reporting problem in 2021 is isolated to that year.

The latest annual figures for 2023 were based on data covering 94.3% of the U.S. population, while 2020 and 2022 figures were based on data covering 97% and 95% of the population, respectively, as shown in a chart Asher published in an Oct. 21 Substack post.

Despite subsequent revisions to the 2021 numbers, they are still uncertain. The reports from law enforcement agencies for that year now cover only 74.1% of the population. 

“Normal levels of participation in 2020, 2022 and 2023 help paint a story of US crime trends that doesn’t rely on the faulty 2021 data,” Asher wrote. “The 2021 estimates were deeply flawed and should largely be ignored. That was true in 2022, it was true in 2023, and it’s true in 2024.”

“I would feel happier if everyone just ignored” the 2021 figures, Asher told us, calling that year’s total a “bad” estimate.

The FBI sent us a statement explaining how the 2021 figures have been estimated since they were first released. It said, as we explained, that because of a “lower volume of participation, the FBI was unable to produce the traditional national estimates for 2021.” To provide a comparison of crime trends, it had performed an “estimation crime trend analysis” for the figures the FBI initially published.

The following year, when it released the 2022 statistics, the 2021 figures included “a statistical sampling of 2021 data to augment the 2021 information collected via NIBRS.” Then, with the release of the 2023 report this year, the FBI revised the 2021 figures to “reflect only estimates based on the data directly reported to the FBI. This explains why the figure appears different than the computed estimation published in the Crime in the Nation, 2022.”

The FBI said that the Crime in the Nation 2023 report “was the first phase in the FBI’s efforts to provide the public with more timely data. The next phase will see a shift to monthly data releases to promote transparency and provide an opportunity for consumers to review data based on more timely crime counts with the understanding that data will be continuously updated. As part of this movement, the FBI has moved towards automation, allowing for past years’ estimates to be updated as data are submitted.”

Some comments by the Trump campaign could leave the impression that the FBI had done something dishonest. Asher and Gelb said there is no evidence of anything like that.

In a campaign email, the Trump campaign said: “A new report reveals the FBI secretly updated its crime data to show that violent crime didn’t drop by 2.1% in 2022, but instead increased in 2022 by 4.5%,” pointing to a report in RealClearInvestigations, which had highlighted the FBI revisions, calling them a “stealth edit” that the FBI didn’t mention in its press release about its report.

Sen. JD Vance, Trump’s vice presidential running mate, said in a speech in North Carolina on Oct. 16 that the FBI “just released some updated crime numbers which suggested crime was higher than they previously let on in 2022. I’m shocked by that.”

It’s true that the FBI’s press release on its latest report didn’t mention the revisions — but such revisions are frequently made, Asher noted, and press releases aren’t sent out about the methodology.

Gelb told us that the FBI “could’ve handled this much better” and “the way that it’s playing out does undermine public confidence.” But “there’s no evidence of any political interference from the administration. None whatsoever. The FBI aggregates these numbers that are supplied by state and local law enforcement.” He’s “not aware of a single agency that said, ‘Hey they garbled our numbers.’”

He said the Council on Criminal Justice has found a similar pattern of crime since 2019. “Violent crimes increased, particularly homicide, during the first couple years of the pandemic,” he said, and then have been decreasing back to the pre-pandemic levels. The opposite happened with property crimes. They went down early in the pandemic, as people stayed home more and stores were closed, making burglaries more difficult, and then property crimes returned as shops opened and people went back to work. An “honest evaluation,” Gelb said, would “look at the broader trend, not two years in middle.”

“There’s no conspiracy, there’s no attempt to deceive, there are not unprecedented stealth changes being suddenly made, the FBI didn’t suddenly ‘find’ a ton of crime,” Asher wrote in his Oct. 21 Substack post.

And despite the revisions, the overall crime trend hasn’t changed.

“We’ve got a lot of sources all pointing in the same direction,” Asher told us. Even if the FBI figures for 2023, and 2024, are later revised up, “we’re still looking at an enormous decrease in murder.”

---

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. 

Source

Political Leanings: Conservative 

2022 Total Spending: N/A 

Win It Back PAC is a conservative super PAC “dedicated to making sure Republicans win back the Senate and the White House in 2024,” according to its website. Its stated mission is to back “conservative leaders with a proven record of winning and implementing policies that American families deserve.”   

The group was established in July 2023 with the intention of preventing former President Donald Trump from winning the GOP presidential nomination. Last year, it spent about $6.5 million on anti-Trump advertisements, according to financial filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Win It Back PAC is affiliated with the conservative Club for Growth, an advocacy group that is led by David McIntosh, who also heads the super PAC. Adam Rozansky, the treasurer of the Win It Back PAC, is the chief financial officer of the Club for Growth.  

Trump and the Club for Growth have had a tense relationship going back to the 2016 GOP presidential primary race. But in February, as Trump was on his way to becoming the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, he and McIntosh began to mend their relationship, and in March, after speaking at a dinner for Club for Growth donors, Trump said that he and McIntosh were “back in love.”  

Since it stopped spending against Trump in 2023, Win It Back PAC has focused mostly on releasing ads attacking Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

As a super PAC, also known as an independent expenditure-only political committee, Win it Back PAC cannot donate directly to candidates. But it can raise an unlimited amount of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, and spend an unlimited amount of money on ads advocating for or against federal candidates.  

Through Sept. 30, the group raised almost $41 million during the 2024 election cycle, including nearly $7.6 million that was contributed by Club for Growth Action, the super PAC of the Club for Growth, and $2.7 million from Never Back Down, a super PAC that supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for president. Win It Back PAC has spent more than $41 million on independent expenditures, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign spending. 

Thus far, it has spent about $31.3 million against Democrats, including at least $11.9 million against Rep. Ruben Gallego, who is running for Arizona’s open Senate seat; about $10.2 million against Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, who is defending her seat against Republican Sam Brown; and at least $3.8 million against Rep. Collin Alred, who is challenging Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas. In September, Politico reported that the super PAC was set to spend $12 million on ads to help Republican Kari Lake win the Arizona race against Gallego. 

In races for the House, where Republicans are trying to maintain control, Win it Back PAC has spent more than $1 million against both Janelle Stelson and Dave Min, Democrats who are running for seats in Pennsylvania and California, respectively. The group also spent more than $1 million against Republican Catherine Templeton, who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Nancy Mace in the Republican primary in South Carolina’s 1st District. The super PAC also spent more than $357,000 on pro-Mace ads.  

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

As disaster relief efforts continue in the areas affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, a Facebook post makes the false claim that Kid Rock has made “14 trips to storm areas with a truckload of supplies” while Taylor Swift has offered no help. The claim originated on a satirical site. To the contrary, Swift has donated $5 million for hurricane relief.

---

Full Story

Recovery efforts continue weeks after Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated property and killed at least 250 people in parts of the southeastern United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it “has spent approximately $4.3 billion on Hurricane Helene response and recovery” as of Oct. 21, including search and rescue efforts and direct assistance to individuals and communities. The agency has delivered more than 12.6 million meals and 13.2 million liters of water to areas affected by Helene.

The hurricanes have also left a trail of misinformation about the federal response and the cause of the intense storms, as we’ve written.

An Oct. 17 Facebook post has drawn the disaster relief efforts into the partisan culture wars, comparing the hurricane assistance provided by musicians Kid Rock, a supporter of former President Donald Trump, and Taylor Swift, who recently endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president. The post falsely claims, “Kid Rock has now made 14 trips to storm areas with a truckload of supplies each time. Taylor Swift is nowhere to be found.”

We found no evidence or news coverage about Kid Rock making 14 trips to the storm areas with a “truckload of supplies.”

The claim originated on a satirical website. A Google search led us to an article in the Dunning-Kruger Times, with the headline, “Kid Rock Heads to North Carolina with Millions in Supplies — Taylor Swift Nowhere to be Found.” The Dunning-Kruger Times is a self-described “subsidiary of the ‘America’s Last Line of Defense’ network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery.” We’ve written many times before about content from this network since it is often copied and reposted by social media users who don’t include a satire disclaimer, as is the case with this claim.

We did find a $20,000 donation attributed to Kid Rock for Trump’s GoFundMe campaign to aid victims of Hurricane Helene. The singer also shared the fundraising campaign link on his X account.

As for Swift, the hunger relief organization Feeding America announced on Oct. 9 that the singer had donated $5 million to the hurricane relief efforts.

“This contribution will help communities rebuild and recover, providing essential food, clean water, and supplies to people affected by these devastating storms,” the organization said in its Instagram post.

---

Sources

Aniftos, Rania. “Kid Rock Performed at the RNC & the Internet Has Thoughts.” Billboard. 19 Jul 2024.

Eagleton, Flagg. “Kid Rock Heads to North Carolina with Millions in Supplies-Taylor Swift Nowhere to be Found.” Dunning-Kruger Times. 2024.

FactCheck.org. “Misinformation Floods Hurricane Season.” 13 Oct 2024.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Press release. “Biden-Harris Administration Provides Billions in Federal Assistance for Helene Response and Recovery, Announces Initial Hiring Effort with New Community Liaison Program to Ensure Community-Driven Long-Term Recovery.” 14 Oct 2024.

Feeding America @feedingamerica. “Thank you, @taylorswift, for standing with us in the movement to end hunger and helping communities in need in the wake of #HurricaneHelene and #HurricaneMilton.” Instagram. 9 Oct 2024.

Fields, Ashleigh. “Trump GoFundMe for Hurricane Helene victims raises more than $3M.” The Hill. 1 Oct 2024.

Fox5Atlanta. “Kid Rock among Trump dinner guests at White House.” 24 Apr 2017.

GoFundMe. “Support Hurricane Helene Victims – Trump Authorized.” Accessed 22 Oct 2024.

KidRock @KidRock. “Make America Great Again – Kid Rock Merch Bundle. Only $47! available at X. 19 Sep 2024.

Wilcox, Christie and Phie Jacobs. “‘Daunting’: Hurricane-battered researchers assess damage from Helene and Milton.” Science. 21 Oct 2024.

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Updated COVID-19 vaccines targeting JN.1-lineage omicron variants of the coronavirus are now available in the U.S. for the fall and winter seasons.

On Aug. 22, the Food and Drug Administration approved and authorized newer formulations of the two mRNA vaccines, from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, for ages 6 months and up. About a week later, the agency authorized an updated version of Novavax’s protein subunit vaccine for people 12 years and older.

The mRNA vaccines specifically target KP.2, a subvariant of JN.1, while the Novavax vaccine targets JN.1.

Following a vaccine advisory committee meeting in late June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older receive an updated vaccine during the fall and winter virus season.

This marks the third year that vaccine manufacturers have updated their COVID-19 vaccine formulations to better match circulating variants. The older versions of the vaccines are no longer available.

Here we answer common questions about the latest vaccines.

• How are these updated shots different from last year’s?
• Who is eligible to get an updated vaccine?
• What evidence supports the use of the updated vaccines?
• How effective are they?
• How safe are they?
• What do experts say about who should get the 2024-2025 vaccines, and when?
• Is one vaccine better than another?
• Are the shots still free, and where can I get one?
• Can I get an updated COVID-19 shot along with other seasonal vaccines?

How are these updated shots different from last year’s?

The new vaccines are nearly identical to their predecessors, except that they now target JN.1-lineage variants of omicron rather than the XBB.1.5 omicron variant. This is akin to a strain change for a seasonal influenza vaccine.

In early June, the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee unanimously voted to recommend that vaccine manufacturers update their COVID-19 vaccines in the fall for JN.1 variants. JN.1 subvariants, including KP.2, were dominant in the U.S. at the time, and it seemed likely that future circulating variants would derive from JN.1. Evidence also indicated that the JN.1 lineage was antigenically very different from XBB.1.5, suggesting an updated formula would be beneficial. About a week later, the FDA expressed a preference for the KP.2 subvariant to more closely match circulating variants.

For the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, this means that small changes were made to the mRNA in the vaccine so that the sequence now corresponds to the spike protein of the KP.2 variant. The spike protein sits on the outside of the coronavirus and is what the virus uses to enter cells. The mRNA vaccines work by prompting the body to temporarily make its own spike protein, which the immune system then responds to, generating protective antibodies and other immune cells. 

For the updated Novavax vaccine, the protein in the vaccine now matches the spike protein of the JN.1 variant. (The Novavax vaccine works in a similar way to the mRNA vaccines — it just skips the step of having cells make spike protein, since the vaccine itself contains protein.) The company did not use KP.2 spike because it was worried it would not have time to make the switch. Protein subunit vaccines take longer to make than mRNA shots.

JN.1 and KP.2 are no longer common variants in the U.S. But as of mid-October, the common ones are closely related to those variants. KP.3.1.1, which CDC models indicated would account for 57% of cases during the two-week period ending Oct. 12, is a descendant of JN.1. The prevalence of KP.3.1.1 has steadily increased, from around 7% in early July to 41% in mid-September. It has been the single-most dominant variant since mid-August.

XEC, a variant that has garnered significant recent media attention and has rapidly spread in Europe, is also a mash-up of two JN.1-lineage variants.

Who is eligible to get an updated vaccine?

Everyone 6 months of age and older is eligible for the mRNA vaccines, while the protein-based Novavax vaccine is available to people 12 years of age and older.

Most people, including those who have not previously been vaccinated, are eligible for a single dose of an updated vaccine, two months or more after a previous COVID-19 vaccination.

Children under the age of 5, however, who have not yet completed a primary course of COVID-19 vaccination should do so. That includes two doses of the updated Moderna vaccine or three doses of the updated Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, with several weeks to months between doses. People opting for the updated Novavax vaccine who have not previously been vaccinated should get two doses, three to eight weeks apart.

Those who are immunocompromised may receive additional doses.

What evidence supports the use of the updated vaccines?

As it has done for the last two years, the FDA authorized and approved the latest JN.1 vaccines similarly to how it handles seasonal influenza vaccines, which are also refreshed each year to better match the viral strains that are circulating. Because the change is so minor, the agency does not require companies to first test the vaccines in people. Instead, the FDA relies on the wealth of data available on earlier versions of the vaccine.

The agency’s decision was based on a “totality of evidence” that included the original clinical trials; other clinical data from earlier vaccines, which demonstrated that people’s immune responses were sufficient; as well as real-world effectiveness and safety data. The FDA also reviewed nonclinical and manufacturing data specific to the updated vaccines.

In the past, some companies have nevertheless conducted small clinical studies on their updated vaccines (or on versions extremely similar to them). That was not done this year. 

In support of the formulation change targeting JN.1-lineage viruses, each company tested their updated vaccine in unvaccinated and previously vaccinated lab animals. They showed that for both groups of animals, the new vaccine prompted a greater neutralizing antibody response to JN.1-lineage variants compared with last year’s vaccine. As the agency explains, this indicates that the new formulations “will likely increase immune responses and protection” to these latest variants.

How effective are they?

There isn’t effectiveness data yet for these updated vaccines, but an analysis of the past two years’ shots showed that compared with no updated vaccine, the shots reduced the risk of a COVID-19-related emergency room or urgent care visit by 43%, hospitalization by 44% and death by 23%.

Protection was generally highest within a month or two after vaccination and declined with time. Compared with no updated vaccine, CDC data indicates that after four to six months, last year’s doses specifically reduced symptomatic infection in adults by about 47%. After two to four months, the vaccines also cut the risk of critical illness by 57%, hospitalization by 43% and an emergency room or urgent care visit by 32%.

It’s important to note that these figures represent the added benefit of getting an updated vaccine against a backdrop of high levels of immunity in the population from both vaccines and infections.

Unless a very different coronavirus variant emerges, experts expect this year’s updated vaccines to perform similar to previous years. 

A preliminary, unpublished study from scientists in Germany, for example, found that antibodies in the blood of people who received an updated Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were able to effectively neutralize mock viruses with JN.1, KP.3.1.1 and XEC spike proteins, although the responses to the latter two were lower.

“JN.1-booster vaccination significantly improved neutralisation of all lineages tested and therefore will likely increase protection against hospitalisation and post-COVID sequelae from infection caused by KP.3.1.1 and XEC,” the authors concluded.

In addition to preventing bad outcomes from acute infections, research indicates vaccination also likely reduces the risk of long COVID.

How safe are they?

The updated vaccines have not been specifically tested for safety in people, just as flu vaccines are not tested in people every year with a strain change. The safety of the shots, however, has been well established in the original trials and through surveillance of billions of highly similar doses.

Most people experience only the expected, temporary side effects, such as pain, swelling and redness at the injection site; tiredness; headache; muscle pain; chills; and fever.

The main serious safety risk of each of the vaccines is inflammation of the heart muscle or its surrounding tissue, known as myocarditis and pericarditis, respectively. The conditions are rare, most commonly affecting young men after a second dose.

Over time, the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis appears to have declined. “We don’t see it so much anymore.” Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told us. “And I think it’s because there’s been so much vaccination and natural infection and there’s such a high degree of population immunity.”

One vaccine safety system, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC program that analyzes electronic health record data in near real-time from a variety of health care organizations across the country, did not identify a statistical signal for myocarditis or pericarditis for any age group with either 2023-2024 mRNA vaccine.

Studies have shown that for most people, myocarditis is much more likely following a COVID-19 infection than a COVID-19 vaccine. Infection-related myocarditis is also more severe and linked to worse outcomes.

Still, to minimize the risk of myocarditis, people who are getting more than one dose this season — such as young children or previously unvaccinated people opting for Novavax — can get the doses eight weeks apart, rather than three or four weeks apart. There is some evidence that a longer interval reduces the risk.

As with all vaccines, there is also a remote risk of anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs very soon after vaccination.

Data presented to the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee in June on the safety of last year’s shots were generally consistent with earlier versions of the vaccines. VSD, however, did identify a statistical signal for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the neurological condition Guillain-Barré syndrome in people 65 years and older. 

It is unclear whether this represents a true risk, although if it does, the risk remains very low — equivalent to about 4 cases of GBS per million doses, which is similar to other vaccines. Previously, neither mRNA vaccine has been associated with GBS.

VSD also identified a signal for ischemic stroke for both mRNA vaccines, but the findings were not consistent. Previously, VSD identified a statistical signal for the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent vaccine in 2022-2023 in people 65 years and older, but numerous other studies have not found any link to the vaccines and stroke. VSD is in the process of conducting a follow-up study to evaluate this potential risk. Later this year, the FDA also expects to have updated vaccine safety surveillance information on last year’s shots, which should shed light on these questions.

No other new or unexpected safety concerns were identified.

What do experts say about who should get the 2024-2025 vaccines, and when?

Official CDC guidance is that everyone 6 months and older “should” get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Many experts agree with this, but some say that the updated shots do not need to be given quite so broadly.

Offit told us that four key high-risk groups should definitely get vaccinated: people who are immunocompromised; those with high-risk medical conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, chronic lung disease, chronic heart disease; pregnant people; and older adults over the age of 75. These groups of people, he said, are the ones who continue to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.

For those outside of those groups, Offit said, people can get vaccinated if they wish, but they should recognize that the purpose of the vaccine is to prevent severe illness — and not to prevent all mild illnesses.

Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona, told us that higher-risk people should be prioritized, but that vaccination could still be helpful for lower-risk people who don’t want to suffer as much from an infection — even if vaccination is not quite as urgent as it once was.

“I’ve had COVID three times and none of them have been especially enjoyable,” he said.

The vaccines, he said, likely lower the risk of infection, by perhaps 20% to 25%. If someone does get sick, he added, they are likely to be less sick or sick for a shorter period of time, reducing the chance they pass the virus on to someone else.

For those reasons, Bhattacharya said, even though he’s not high risk, he will be getting vaccinated this season — but after waiting some time after a recent infection.

The CDC, too, recognizes that some groups of people will benefit more than others. The agency notes on its website that vaccination is “especially important” for those at highest risk. That includes people age 65 years and older, those with underlying medical conditions, residents of long-term care facilities, and pregnant people “to protect themselves and their infants.”

Offit, who is a pediatrician, added that all children who have never been vaccinated should get an updated vaccine — even if they have been previously infected. “Children are like in the top two or three groups that get hospitalized because they are not vaccinated,” he said.

Offit, however, did not think a previously vaccinated, healthy child necessarily needs to get an updated vaccine every year.

The latest CDC data on hospitalizations show that children 0 to 4 years are consistently the age group with the third highest rate of hospitalization, after adults 65 years and older and those 50 to 64 years old.

Other CDC data presented in June show that people 75 years and older have the highest risk of a COVID-19-related hospitalization, followed by babies less than 6 months of age and adults 65 to 74 years old.

According to that data, only 5% of children above the age of 6 months who were hospitalized last season for COVID-19 received last year’s updated vaccine and fewer than 20% had been vaccinated against COVID-19 at all since August 2022. For kids over the age of 5, about 80% had an underlying medical condition, but far fewer younger children did, including just 25% of babies younger than 6 months and 42% of kids 6 months to 2 years.

Over the past summer, kids under 5 were also the most likely age group to visit the emergency room for COVID-19 — even more than those over 65.

As for when to get the vaccine, Offit said that those at high-risk who haven’t been recently vaccinated or infected should get it now. Other experts have echoed this advice.

As STAT has reported, the main concern with getting vaccinated earlier in the season is that it could leave high-risk people vulnerable later in the year. However, in the past, the CDC has recommended an additional shot for these individuals. The CDC’s advisory committee is set to meet on Oct. 23 to consider the question.

Reasons to get vaccinated sooner rather than later, the CDC notes, include someone’s personal risk of COVID-19, the COVID-19 risk of someone they live or have close contact with, and the local level of disease.

As of early- to mid-October, COVID-19 illness is low nationally, after a small surge in cases in late summer. In the past couple of years, serious coronavirus infections have increased in November and December, peaking around the new year, although there is regional variability. Vaccination takes a week or two to provide protection.

Some people, particularly lower-risk individuals, may also wish to time their vaccine to maximize protection during the holidays or other higher-risk events. Although the vaccines are meant to primarily prevent severe disease, they likely will reduce the risk of infection somewhat, but only for a short time.

CDC guidelines state that, with a few exceptions, people should wait at least two months after an earlier vaccine and “may delay” vaccination for three months after a recent coronavirus infection.

Bhattacharya, however, said that purely from an immunological standpoint, he recommended that people at lower risk wait a bit longer, ideally between six to nine months since a previous exposure. Other experts have recommended a four- to six-month wait.

“If you try to get it really soon since the last time you’ve been infected or vaccinated, you’re not really getting the full possible benefit of the vaccine,” Bhattacharya said. “And the reason is that you have all these antibodies that are still around … and it kind of gets in the way of your immune system recognizing the new vaccine.”

“There’s no safety risk or anything to it,” he added, “but if you get it too soon, you’re not necessarily reaping the full rewards.”

Is one vaccine better than another?

Experts told us there aren’t substantial differences between the vaccines, and people should opt for whichever vaccine they prefer or is available. The CDC and FDA similarly do not recommend one vaccine over another.

“There’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that one vaccine works better than the other,” Bhattacharya said.

As we explained above, the mRNA vaccines are slightly more “current” in their variant formulation than Novavax’s protein-based vaccine. This could translate into a slightly lower risk of infection shortly after vaccination. However, any difference is expected to be small. 

“It does in some ways make a little bit of sense to get the vaccine that is as closely matched to the circulating variant as you can,” Bhattacharya said. But he noted that the circulating variants are not that different from the Novavax’s JN.1 target and that many of the antibodies people will make in response to the updated vaccines are aimed at parts of the virus that haven’t changed.

“And so even if it’s off by a little bit, you’re still going to be getting decent protection,” he said.

The main function of vaccination is to protect against serious illness and death — and short of a major change in the circulating variants, all of the available vaccines should do this well.

Offit said there could be as much as a 15% to 20% difference in protection against severe disease between the mRNA and Novavax vaccines if circulating variants continue to evolve. But he expects all of the vaccines to work.

If someone has previously had a hard time with the expected side effects of the mRNA shots, such as pain or swelling at the injection site, fatigue, and tiredness, there is evidence that the Novavax vaccine could be easier to take. A 2024 paper that reviewed the scientific literature on the subject found that the Novavax vaccine was consistently less reactogenic than the two other vaccines.

On the other hand, far more mRNA vaccines have been administered, so those shots are better studied.

For children below the age of 12, the only options are the two mRNA vaccines.

Are the shots still free, and where can I get one?

The federal government has not purchased vaccines for free mass distribution the way it did during the pandemic, but most people should still be able to get a free vaccine.

People covered by Medicare, the vast majority of those on Medicaid and most people with private insurance plans can get a vaccine at no cost.

As part of its preventive services coverage requirement, the Affordable Care Act mandates that health plans cover vaccines recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with no cost-sharing, as long as they are provided in-network. Only grandfathered private plans that existed prior to the passage of the law do not have this requirement.

Children on Medicaid, as well as kids who are uninsured, underinsured, or American Indian or Alaska Native can get free COVID-19 vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program.

For those without insurance, the private-sector cost of an adult vaccine is around $140, but as KFF has noted, the price could be higher, and doesn’t include vaccine administration costs. CVS says on its website that the out-of-pocket cost for an updated COVID-19 vaccine at its pharmacies is a bit more than $200.

Adults who cannot afford a vaccine may be able to find free or lower-cost COVID-19 vaccines from state or local health departments or federally funded health centers. The CDC is assisting that effort with $62 million, although those funds will likely cover less than 1 million people, out of about 21 million uninsured adults under the age of 65.

A CDC program that previously provided free COVID-19 vaccines to adults in need, known as the Bridge Access Program, ended in August 2024 due to a lack of funding.

You can identify pharmacies that offer COVID-19 and other fall respiratory virus vaccines at Vaccines.gov. Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax also each have online search tools to find pharmacies specifically stocked with their vaccines. Updated COVID-19 vaccines may also be available at doctors’ offices.

Can I get an updated COVID-19 shot along with other seasonal vaccines?

If you are eligible, yes. Coadministration of vaccines, or giving more than one shot at the same time, is a common practice. It’s encouraged, particularly for those at highest risk, because it’s more convenient and increases the chance that people will get the vaccines they are eligible for.

The most common combo in the fall is likely to be a COVID-19 vaccine with a seasonal influenza shot. Studies indicate this is safe and equally effective as getting the vaccines separately, although people are slightly more likely to experience temporary, expected side effects, such as tiredness, headache and muscle pain.

Older adults who are eligible for a respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, vaccine may also receive that vaccine with a COVID-19 shot, with or without a flu vaccine, although there isn’t much data about combining those shots in a single visit.

So far, the RSV vaccine is not an annual vaccine and can only be taken once, so people who got this vaccine last year should not get another dose.

It may not always make sense to get the vaccines together, however, due to concerns about timing. The RSV and flu seasons do not perfectly align, nor do surges of the coronavirus — and people who have recently been vaccinated or infected with the coronavirus don’t need to get their COVID-19 shot right away.

The CDC recommends that older people get vaccinated against RSV between August and October, in preparation for a season that typically begins in fall and peaks in winter. The agency recommends that people get their flu shots in September or October — and no later than Halloween, although some experts advocate for as late as November because protection will wane.

Both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say pregnant people may get other vaccines along with a COVID-19 shot. These include Tdap, a vaccine that is given each pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough, and the flu and the maternal RSV shots. The maternal RSV vaccine is given to people who are 32 to 36 weeks pregnant between September and January to protect their infants. (For more, see our article “Q&A on RSV Maternal Vaccine and Antibody Candidates to Protect Infants.”)

Babies may also receive a COVID-19 vaccine along with a flu shot and/or the RSV monoclonal antibody nirsevimab. The antibody drug is not a vaccine but acts like one, preventing illness from RSV. Infants whose birthing parent received an RSV vaccine during pregnancy generally do not need the drug.

---

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. 

Source

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

A misleading TV ad from a pro-Donald Trump super PAC claims that, as the attorney general of California, Vice President Kamala Harris “ignored” a state law and “allowed convicted sex offenders to live near schools and parks.” That’s a distortion of what happened.

In fact, Harris defended the law in court until the Supreme Court of California ruled that the law’s residency restrictions for certain registered sex offenders had been unconstitutionally enforced in San Diego County. Harris’ office later advised the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that blanket application of the law also could be found unconstitutional in other counties.

State corrections officials then revised their policy to implement the law on a case-by-case basis, primarily focusing on enforcement against high-risk sex offenders and individuals whose crimes involved young children.

But the MAGA Inc. could give the false impression that there was no enforcement.

The ad portraying Harris as soft on crime was released on Oct. 9, and the super PAC has spent more than $19 million to run it thousands of times in at least five electoral swing states, according to AdImpact, which tracks political advertising.

The ad’s narrator says: “After a little girl was raped and buried alive, laws were passed to keep sex offenders away from children. Kamala ignored Jessica’s Law and allowed convicted sex offenders to live near schools and parks. Kamala Harris has always put criminals first.”

The ad refers to the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, otherwise known as Jessica’s Law, or Proposition 83, which about 70% of California voters approved in November 2006. The law was named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and killed by a convicted sex offender in 2005.

Among other restrictions, the law said that registered sex offenders could not “reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.”

To support its claims about Harris, the attack ad cites Newsweek. Although not clear to viewers, the ad is referring to an Aug. 7 opinion piece by a conservative activist that said: “Indeed, when Harris was the attorney general of California she stopped the enforcement of ‘Jessica’s Law,’ which imposed stricter penalties and restrictions on sex offenders. Initially, as district attorney, she supported the law. However, when it suited her political agenda, she instructed parole officers to disregard its restrictions on where sex offenders could live, allowing them to live near children.”

But that summary is misleading. It omits the fact that Harris’ position on how to enforce the law changed after the state Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions siding with four plaintiffs who argued that complying with the law’s residency prohibition left them homeless. Prior to that ruling in March 2015, Harris had defended the law in court, as the Attorney General’s Office represented state corrections officials in the case.

As the Associated Press reported at the time:

AP, March 2, 2015: The ruling, which upheld an appeals court decision, came in a case brought by four registered sex offenders in San Diego County.

A San Diego County judge ruled in 2011 that the law violated the three men and one woman’s right to intrastate travel, to establish a home and maintain their privacy and was not specifically tailored to each of their circumstances.

The lower court found sex offenders were effectively banned from about 97 percent of the multifamily rental housing units in San Diego County. At least some of the remaining housing was also not available to them for reasons including low vacancy rates, high prices and the unwillingness of some landlords to rent to sex offenders, according to the court.

The court ordered the state Department of Corrections to stop applying the residency restriction as a blanket provision against all paroled registered sex offenders who were under supervision in San Diego County.

A state appeals court upheld the decision, prompting the state Attorney General’s Office to appeal to the State Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court of California unanimously ruled that blanket enforcement of the law’s restrictions violated the rights of the parolees in San Diego County, the state corrections department said it would change how it applied the law, as advised by Harris’ office in a confidential legal opinion.

“While the court’s ruling is specific to San Diego County, its rationale is not,” Luis Patino, then the spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said in a statement, according to the Los Angeles Times. He added, “After reviewing the court’s analysis, the state attorney general’s office advised CDCR that applying the blanket mandatory residency restrictions of Jessica’s Law would be found to be unconstitutional in every county.”

Although some critics disagreed with the attorney general’s interpretation of the court’s opinion, a legal expert told us that Harris and the CDCR were practically forced to change course.

“The problems that the parolees in San Diego faced were the same in other parts of the state, and challenges were being made everywhere,” Bruce Zucker, an attorney and professor of criminology and justice studies at California State University, Northridge, said in an email. “California courts generally sided with parolees at all levels — trial courts and courts of appeal, as well as the Supreme Court.”

Zucker said that Harris did not ignore the state law, as the ad claimed.

“The AG’s office defended the law at all costs — literally and figuratively,” he told us. “The law was written and enforced in a nonsensical and draconian way, but the AG’s office under Harris wouldn’t back down. The Supreme Court finally ruled that it had to be enforced in a more practical way, which meant case-by-case analyses of each offender’s situation.”

On March 26, 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that a memo issued by the CDCR said that parole officers would continue to broadly enforce the law’s residency restrictions for high-risk sex offenders and those whose crimes involved children under the age of 14. “Otherwise, officials will assess each parolee based on factors relating to their individual cases, the agency said,” according to the Times.

An AP report added that Patino said the enforcement policy would be “tailored to people who need it the most,” meaning that “some people who are not pedophiles … will probably be removed from the restriction.”

Later that year, in December, the AP reported that a policy change led to “more than 4,200 of the state’s 5,900 offenders no longer qualify[ing] for the residency restrictions, according to data compiled by the corrections department at the AP’s request.”

More people were excluded than originally anticipated. Even some child molesters were removed from the 2,000-foot residency restriction, the AP said, because, upon further review, corrections officials implemented a policy that “requires a direct connection between where a parolee lives and the offender’s crime or potential to reoffend.”

“The department spent months reviewing offenders’ criminal backgrounds before deciding that the ban should continue to apply to about 1,400 offenders,” the article said.

---

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. 

Source