Category: Fact Check

The special counsel report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents was a major discussion topic on the Sunday morning political talk shows. 

The president’s critics played up Special Counsel Robert Hur’s description of Biden’s allegedly poor memory; defenders countered that such details were either inaccurate, out of bounds for such a report, or both.

The discussion yielded several examples of incomplete or inaccurate descriptions of what Hur wrote in the report. 

Here’s a rundown.

Claims that the special counsel found guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Sarah Isgur, a former Justice Department official under former President Donald Trump appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” overstepped on the report’s findings about reasonable doubt.

“They found evidence that (Biden) willfully retained national security information. And even probably beyond a reasonable doubt,” Isgur said. “But the justice manual says that that’s not enough even if you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to believe, as the prosecutor, that you can get a conviction from a jury.” 

In the report’s executive summary, Hur wrote that “we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

The report repeats the concern about not achieving proof beyond reasonable doubt roughly two dozen more times throughout the 388 pages of text.

Saying Biden and Trump did the same thing when they handled classified documents

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” exaggerated the similarities between the Biden documents case and the one being pursued by Jack Smith, a different special counsel against Trump.

Willfully disclosing classified material is “exactly what Donald Trump’s been charged with,” Cotton said. “The special counsel had to explain why he wasn’t going to charge President Biden with a crime, since President Trump is facing the exact same crime and the explanation is, President Biden’s memory is failing.”

There is overlap between the willful retention charge that Hur considered against Biden and the document case charges against Trump. However, Cotton ignored other charges that were made against Trump and not against Biden.

When Trump was indicted in June 2023 on about three dozen counts, the charges included conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements. The indictment accused Trump of 

• “suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.”

• directing an employee “to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI and the grand jury.” 

• “suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents.” 

• causing the submission of a certification to the FBI and grand jury “falsely representing” that all documents had been produced.

In his report, Hur stated that Biden had consistently cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation. Hur specifically noted that this was a major point of contrast with how Biden and Trump handled classified documents after they left office.

Jumping from “evidence” of guilt to just plain guilt

Several hosts and guests on the shows omitted a key word — “evidence” — when summarizing what the report said.

Although the report sometimes reads as if the special counsel mentally concluded that Biden was guilty of willful retention of classified documents, Hur’s phrasing is more circumspect.

Here’s how several Sunday show guests went beyond what the report said: 

• The report “codified the fact that … Biden committed a felony and willful retention of documents.” — “This Week” guest Reince Priebus, President Donald Trump’s first chief of staff.

• The special counsel wrote that Biden “‘willfully and knowingly retained classified documents.’” — Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor and former Republican presidential candidate, on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

• “The report makes it clear President Biden intentionally took classified material and he willfully disclosed it to his own ghostwriter. That’s clear.” — Cotton on “Fox News Sunday.” (Cotton’s reference to Biden’s ghostwriter concerns his 2017 memoir, “Promise Me, Dad.” The special counsel found evidence that Biden shared classified information with his ghostwriter as the book was being written, though no classified material appeared in the book.)

Also, hosts Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week” and Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press” didn’t use the word “evidence” when referring to the report on their shows, and a graphic behind Welker’s shoulder also omitted the word.

In each case, this framing goes beyond what the report said.

To be fair, our initial article on the special counsel’s report also did not appreciate the distinction between including or omitting the word “evidence.” We decided to update our earlier story given feedback from experts for this one.

At the beginning of the report, the special counsel said the investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials.” The phrase “uncovered evidence that” offers a limit on what the special counsel concluded.

The special counsel said Biden would likely be able to muster counterevidence against a charge of “willful retention” if the case were to go to trial.

Several legal experts told PolitiFact that omitting the “uncovered evidence that” phrasing is not trivial.

“Saying that there is evidence of a crime is not the same as saying Biden is guilty of a crime,” said Joan Meyer, who has worked as a prosecutor at the federal and local level.

Ric Simmons, an Ohio State University law professor, said the special counsel was consistent. The report “always says that there is evidence that Biden committed these crimes, not that he is guilty of these crimes, and this is consistent with the best practices of prosecutors,” he said.

In essence, Simmons said, “Hur says that he does not believe he can prove Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so it would be even worse for him to claim that Biden is guilty.”

Evidence limitations with a Biden letter about Afghanistan

Biden’s legal team referred to a handwritten memo Biden wrote to then-President Barack Obama about Afghanistan around Thanksgiving 2009. It was among the materials FBI agents recovered from Biden’s Delaware garage and home office in December 2022 and January 2023. 

“Even the special counsel acknowledges (that this) was one that he would not have thought would include classified information,” Bob Bauer, Biden’s personal attorney, said on CBS “Face the Nation.”

The report said: “The memo concerned deliberations from more than seven years earlier about the Afghanistan troop surge, and in the intervening years those deliberations had been widely discussed in public, so Mr. Biden could have reasonably expected that the memo’s contents became less sensitive over time.” 

“Less sensitive” is not the same as having zero classified information. However, the report acknowledged that if the charges came to trial, “We expect the defense would strongly challenge whether the documents still contain sensitive national defense information.”

A fire erupted in a Moscow residential building Feb. 9 at about the same time that Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin was broadcast. But there is no evidence from news reports or authorities that the fire is related to the interview or that it was caused by direct energy weapons, as social media users have claimed. 

TikTok users shared a video of the fire with the text that read, “Russia was just attacked with Direct Energy Weapons after the Tucker and Putin interview released.” The video has more than 14,000 likes.   

TikTok identified this post as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact’s partnership with TikTok.)

The video was published in a Feb. 8 Daily Mail article about a fire in a six-story Moscow residential building. 

The fire started in an apartment on the building’s top floor and spread to the roof before spreading to two adjacent houses, The Moscow Times reported. Helicopters and fire trucks contained the fire and more than 400 residents were evacuated. 

Reports about the fire in local and international news outlets provided no evidence that direct energy weapons caused the fire or that it was related to Carlson’s interview. 

Agence France-Presse reported Feb. 8 that authorities had not announced the cause of the fire. Newsweek reported Feb. 9 that Russia’s state-run Tass news agency said authorities were investigating a short circuit as a possible cause of the fire.  

Direct energy weapons are real and can use energy fired at light speed. Countries including the U.S. are researching their use, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

PolitiFact has previously debunked a similar conspiracy theory that direct energy weapons caused the Maui, Hawaii, wildfires in 2023. 

We rate the claim that a video shows Russia was attacked with direct energy weapons after Carlson’s interview with Putin was released False.

En una entrevista de dos horas desde Moscú, el ex presentador de Fox News Tucker Carlson y el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin hablaron sobre la guerra con Ucrania, las relaciones con Estados Unidos y la inteligencia artificial.

Algunos usuarios de las redes sociales destacaron una cita de Putin en la que decía que el tema de la frontera sur de Estados Unidos le divertía. Pero eso no es real.

Una larga publicación en X del 8 de febrero decía mostrar el texto de un intercambio entre Carlson y Putin.

Tucker: “¿Estás siguiendo lo que está sucediendo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos?”.

Putin: “En realidad, sí. Es parte de mi informe diario. A nosotros, los rusos, nos parece irónicamente divertido que el Congreso gaste miles de millones para proteger las fronteras extranjeras pero descuide las propias. Es bastante ridículo y mortal”. 

Este intercambio entre Carlson y Putin fue inventado. La publicación original es del 4 de febrero, cuatro días antes de que Carlson publicará la entrevista con Putin.

Carlson dijo en un video compartido el 6 de febrero en X que estaba en Moscú para entrevistar a Putin y que “lo haremos pronto”. The Associated Press informó el 7 de febrero que el Kremlin había confirmado que la entrevista había sucedido. La entrevista se publicó el 8 de febrero en la página web de Carlson y en X.

iSource News, la cuenta de X que originalmente compartió el intercambio inventado, borró la publicación. El 5 de febrero, la cuenta dijo que la borró debido a “reclamaciones de derechos de autor”.

Calificamos la afirmación de que Putin dijo en una entrevista con Carlson que encuentra “irónicamente divertida” la cuestión de la frontera sur de Estados Unidos como Ridícula y Falsa.

Una versión de este artículo originalmente fue escrito en inglés y traducido por Marta Campabadal Graus.

Read a version of this check in English.

Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

---

Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.

Karine Jean-Pierre, President Joe Biden’s press secretary, did not abruptly end a press conference to avoid answering a question about fossil fuel production. The 2022 video was edited to remove Jean-Pierre’s response. 

An Instagram video shows Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy asking Jean-Pierre, “So you’re asking oil companies to further lower gas prices. What makes you think they’re going to listen to an administration that is ultimately trying to put them out of business?”

The video shows Jean-Pierre responding by asking, “How is the administration trying to put them out of business?” Doocy then tells her, “They produce fossil fuels. And this president says he wants to end fossil fuels.”

Pierre then says, “Thanks everybody,” signaling that the meeting is over. The Instagram video ends with a clip of comedian Dave Chappelle saying “Gotcha b—!” 

This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

Many users criticized Jean-Pierre in the post’s comments. One user said, “Why can’t she just answer a question,” and another wrote, “this woman is rude every time he has a question she runs away … “

The full video from the Oct. 19, 2022, press conference and White House transcript shows Jean-Pierre answering Doocy’s question. She says: 

“So look, I — you kind of asked me this question yesterday. And here’s — here’s where — what we would say: U.S. oil production is up and on track to reach a record high next year. We’ve seen that from their — from when we see their profit margins. They are —  they — you know, it’s record high. And so, in fact, the United States has produced more oil in President Biden’s first year than under Trump’s administration’s first year. But at the same time, oil companies are raking in record profits while more than 9,000 approved drilling permits remain untapped by the oil industry. There is no shortage of opportunity or incentive for all companies to ramp up production. This is something they can actually do. It is available to them. They can do this. And also, they’re getting the profits. And so, because they’re getting — I just showed 60 cents on the chart — more profit — right? — that they — that we’re seeing higher — more higher costs that we’re seeing that what — than what retailers are paying at the pump. They can bring that down. They’ve done it before. You saw that at the chart, in the beginning. They were able to bring prices down.” 

Doocy then asks another question about whether Biden agrees with a statement by Stacey Abrams, then a Democratic candidate for Georgia governor. Jean-Pierre says she won’t comment. Several other reporters asked questions that Jean-Pierre answers before she thanks the audience and leaves.

We rate the claim that Jean-Pierre ended a White House press conference to avoid answering a question False.

Former President Donald Trump recently claimed that the economy has gotten so bad under President Joe Biden that food prices have skyrocketed.

Speaking to the National Rifle Association Feb. 9 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump said food “costs 40%, 50%, 60% more than it did just a few years ago.”

Food prices have risen unusually rapidly under Biden, along with consumer prices overall. Although inflation has eased over the past year, it peaked in mid-2022 at a level unseen in four decades.

However, Trump exaggerated the scale of the food price increase. The lowest figure Trump offered, 40%, is about twice as high as the actual rate of increase under Biden.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article.

Overall food price increases

Every month, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates not only an overall inflation measure called the consumer price index but also specific submeasurements for food — such as meats; fruits and vegetables; and dairy products;.

The five presidents before Biden saw overall food prices rise from 5.3% (under Trump) to 12.3% (under George H.W. Bush) during their first three years in office.

By contrast, in Biden’s first three years, food prices increased by 20.3%. That rise stemmed from the same causes that drove overall inflation higher — supply-chain difficulties during and after the coronavirus pandemic, exacerbated by policies Biden pursued early in his presidency that put more money into Americans’ hands when goods supplies were limited.

But even the unusually high food inflation during Biden’s first three years has not come close to the 40% to 60% cited by Trump.

Food prices have risen 40% from April 2012 to today, and they have risen 60% from August 2007 to today. But these rises over 12 and 16 years are longer than just “a few years ago.”

The price of major types of food products hasn’t increased by 40% to 60%, either

We also looked at major food categories to check whether prices in any of them had increased from 40% to 60% under Biden; none had. 

The biggest increase during Biden’s first three years was for cereals and bakery goods, 25.6%. Nonalcoholic beverage prices also rose faster than food inflation overall, 21.4%. Meats, poultry, fish and eggs collectively rose by 20.2%. 

Trump may have been extrapolating from the price rise for one particular food — eggs — that skyrocketed by 229% from January 2021, when Biden came into office, to January 2023. This price increase was tied to bird flu outbreaks. That cost spike receded, although egg prices remain 72% higher today than when Biden entered office in early 2021.

Trump in September falsely claimed that the price of bacon was five times higher under Biden; the increase at the time of his statement was 30%. Bacon’s price is now about 13% higher than when Biden became president.

Wages have grown, but not as fast as food prices

When gauging higher food costs’ effect on consumer pocketbooks, however, price inflation tells only part of the story. The other part comes from wages.

Like Biden, four of five presidents before him saw food prices outpace wage gains during their first three years in office. 

Biden has seen wages increase faster during his first three years than his five most recent predecessors. But in Biden’s case, those wage gains weren’t enough to keep pace with food inflation. 

In contrast, during Trump’s first three years in office, food prices rose by 5.3% as wages soared by 12.7%.

Our ruling

Trump said that food “costs 40%, 50%, 60% more than it did just a few years ago.”

Food costs have risen faster under Biden than under any of his five most recent predecessors. Nevertheless, the overall 20% increase in food prices on his watch is half of the lowest figure cited by Trump, and one-third his highest figure.

Egg prices are 72% higher today than when Biden took office. (The price spiked 229% in January 2023 because of bird flu outbreaks.)

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

An online conspiracy theory stemming from an old U.S. law has led some people to claim a legal right to drive without a license or refuse to register their children’s births.

That conspiracy theory claims that an 1871 law secretly made the United States a for-profit corporation instead of a government. 

In a nearly nine-minute long TikTok video, a woman’s voice-over says, “The U.S. government incorporated as a for-profit commercial enterprise in the Legislative Act of Feb. 21, 1871.”

The woman says, “We are their chattel, we are their inventory. They make money off of us. They attached our birth certificates to a CUSIP number on the stock exchange, which equals slave trade, and it’s done every time a baby is born. There is a bond trust account set up and they trade us on the stock market.” 

Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures, aka CUSIP, numbers, identify financial instruments such as U.S.- and Canada-registered stocks and U.S. municipal and government bonds.

We found a similar video through our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.

The video refers to the Organic Act of 1871 that established a government for the District of Columbia. Nothing in the law’s text transforms the United States into a corporation. 

Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said the law restructured the District of Columbia’s government, repealing individual charters for Washington and Georgetown and consolidating the District of Columbia government into one entity. 

The act’s final section mentions corporations. But Roosevelt said it is “common to constitute cities or municipalities as corporations. “That’s what lets them own property and sue in court,”  he said.

Addressing the video’s claim about chattel slavery, Roosevelt said no corporation owns people; such ownership would breach the 13th Amendment. 

We wondered where the misinterpretation of the 1871 law started. 

An anti-government extremist group called “sovereign citizens” popularized the idea of the United States as an illegitimate corporate entity, according to the Anti-Defamation League. NBC News reported in 2010 that the belief leads some group members to not follow state and federal laws and refuse to carry a driver’s license or register their children’s births. 

The conspiracy theory picked up among QAnon supporters who said Donald Trump would be returned to the presidency in March 2021 under this law, PolitiFact reported. 

We rate the claim that the United States is a corporation instead of a government Pants on Fire! 

Publicaciones en Facebook dicen que los latinos tienen una “gran oportunidad” en Texas gracias a un estímulo de salud que provee miles de dólares. Pero estas ofertas no son legítimas. 

“Texas dará a los Latinos un estímulo de salud de hasta $6,400”, dice el video del 4 de febrero, asegurando que la mayoría de los Latinos califican pero tienen que actuar rápido.

La publicación añadió: “Este estímulo de $6,400 cubrirá tus alimentos y el alquiler por un año”.

Al menos otra publicación similarmente promueve el supuesto estímulo. Las publicaciones fueron marcadas como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

Estas publicaciones suenan muy buenas para ser verdad, y lo son, porque no encontramos ningún programa gubernamental en Texas que ofrezca este estímulo. Tampoco existe un nuevo programa llamado Acta de Atención Médica que ofrezca “$6,400 en créditos de prima avanzados para gastos médicos costosos y necesidades diarias”.

PolitiFact no encontró nada que hablara sobre un estímulo de salud en la página web de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Texas. Esta organización gubernamental ofrece servicios de salud y ayuda a los texanos a obtener beneficios como el Medicaid y Medicare.

Jennifer Ruffcorn, una oficial de prensa de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Texas, le dijo a PolitiFact que el estímulo de salud no es un programa ofrecido por su agencia. 

PolitiFact tampoco encontró reportes oficiales de otras ramas del gobierno de Texas, ni en medios de comunicación legítimos, sobre el supuesto estímulo de salud. 

Notamos que las dos publicaciones en Facebook llevan a las mismas páginas web que tiene un mensaje de descargo de responsabilidad que dice: “Este sitio web no está afiliado al programa Affordable Cares Act ni a ninguna otra entidad gubernamental”.

Estas páginas ofrecen dos números de teléfonos diferentes en donde supuestamente se puede solicitar el dinero, y preguntan si ganas menos de $50,000 al año y si tienes Medicaid y Medicare. Al llamar a los números de teléfonos, no recibimos respuesta. 

El gobierno federal tiene programas de salud de Medicare y Medicaid, para personas mayores de 65 años o con discapacidades, y para la población de bajos ingresos incluyendo a niños. 

Las personas de bajos ingresos pueden obtener seguro gratis o a bajo precio a través de la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA, por sus siglas en inglés), popularmente conocida como Obamacare, pero hay restricciones. 

Existe también un subsidio del gobierno, llamado crédito tributario de prima, que puede reducir el pago mensual del seguro de salud de las personas inscritas en un plan del Mercado de Seguros Médicos. Pero este depende de los ingresos de la persona, según la página del Cuidado de Salud del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. 

Sin embargo, ninguno de estos programas ofrece a las personas un estímulo de salud de $6,400 en Texas, ni a nivel federal. 

Así que calificamos las publicaciones que dicen que Texas dará a los latinos un estímulo de salud de hasta $6,400 como Falsa. 

Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

---

Debido a limitaciones técnicas, partes de nuestra página web aparecen en inglés. Estamos trabajando en mejorar la presentación.

Taylor Swift wears T-shirts, as one of her lyrics famously declares, but did she wear one opposing former President Donald Trump? That’s what some social media users are claiming.

A Feb. 7 Facebook post shows a photo of pop star Swift wearing a blue T-shirt that says, “NOPE Not again.” The “O” in “nope” was stylized with a blond swoop of hair and a red necktie that mimicked Trump’s likeness.

Text above the photo read, “Taylor Swift is worth $1.31 Billion and has over 600,000,000 followers on social media. I hope that they get her message!”

Another Facebook post shared the same image and text.

(Screengrab from Facebook)

These posts were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

But as Swift sings, “fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake.”

A reverse-image search using TinEye revealed the original photo, taken at the 2019 Time100 Gala in New York City. In that photo, Swift wore a pink and yellow dress.

This is not the first time images have been altered to falsely represent the political stances  Swift has taken. We’ve also fact-checked images that claimed to show Swift holding flags that said Trump won the 2020 election.

On occasion, Swift has commented on political issues. Last fall, she encouraged her U.S. fans to register to vote, and ahead of the 2020 election, she endorsed President Joe Biden. Swift has not yet weighed in on the 2024 race.

We rate the claim that a photo shows Swift wearing an anti-Trump T-shirt Pants on Fire!

RELATED: What could a Taylor Swift endorsement mean for voter turnout in the 2024 election?

The Super Bowl LVIII inspired plenty of talking points for every sports fan. A flashy, star-studded halftime show from Usher. A nail-biting overtime game. A triumphant kiss between Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. And another intriguing outfit choice by Kelce’s older brother, Jason Kelce.

A viral Feb. 11 X post showed a photo of Philadelphia Eagles center Jason Kelce in the same outfit as the comical, blackjack-playing “The Hangover” character Alan, played by Zach Galifianakis.

(Screenshot from X)

“Unpopular Opinion: Jason Kelce is cooler than Travis Kelce. He arrived in Vegas, for the Superbowl, dressed as Alan from The Hangover,” the text in the photo read. It featured the photo of Kelce side-by-side with the photo of Alan, showing that they were both wearing the same shirt and brown leather satchel. 

The X post caption read, “Jason Kelce is a living god.”

We hate to ruin the fun, but this isn’t a real photo of Kelce. It’s altered.

Today reported that Total Pro Sports posted the photo on X on Feb. 10, a day before it circulated through other posts. We found a version of the photo on TikTok posted Jan. 31.

A closer look at the side-by-side photos show the same shirt creases, the same background, and the same folded arm placed resting right above the hip.

CBS initially reported that Kelce dressed as Alan from “The Hangover,” but the report was later updated to show his Super Bowl outfit. He wore overalls with the Chiefs red-and-yellow color scheme and arrowhead logo.

Kelce’s typical raucous behavior might have led fans to believe this antic was real. In January, Kelce took his shirt off and howled after his brother scored a touchdown in a playoff game against the Buffalo Bills. Two days before the Super Bowl, he shouted “Eagles!” at an Adele concert. (Adele said he sounded like a drunk football fan.) He was also recently spotted playing blackjack in Las Vegas. 

We rate the claim that Kelce arrived in Vegas dressed as Alan from “The Hangover” False.

After a Quebec man pleaded guilty in January to setting 14 forest fires in 2023, social media users were quick to seize on his admission as a reason to dismiss climate change’s role in Canada’s record-breaking year for wildfires.

A Feb. 6 Instagram post shared an image of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a headline that read, “Quebec man pleads guilty to setting 14 forest fires — Trudeau claimed it was climate change.” The headline matches one on a Jan. 16 article in The Post Millennial, a conservative Canadian publication. 

The Instagram post’s caption said, “True story — remember when everyone was freaking out saying it was climate change and there was smoke covering New England. They squashed the arson story immediately, well it was true.”

The Instagram post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

The 14 fires set by Brian Paré, and the damage they caused, represent only a tiny fraction of the number of wildfires recorded and the amount of land burned in Quebec and Canada in 2023, government statistics show. 

According to news reports, Paré, 38, pleaded guilty to setting 14 forest fires. A prosecutor said Paré had posted conspiracy theories on social media that the government was intentionally setting the wildfires to convince people of climate change.

A record 18.5 million hectares of land, or more than 45.7 million acres, burned from more than 6,500 forest fires in Canada last year. Smoke from the blazes traveled south, often affecting air quality in U.S. states last summer.

Officials said fires Paré set burned from 853 to 900 hectares, or 2,100 to 2,223 acres. 

In Quebec alone, there were 706 to 713 fires, burning 4.4 million to 5 million hectares, or 12.3 million acres. 

Philippe Bergeron, a spokesperson for the Quebec-based Society for the Protection of Forests Against Fire, said 17 of Quebec’s total fires in 2023 were determined to have started by arson, burning about 967 hectares of land. 

Climate change’s role

Trudeau has linked Canada’s wildfires last year to climate change, writing in a June 7, 2023 X post, “We’re seeing more and more of these fires because of climate change.”

The Instagram post about arson misrepresents the scientific discussion about wildfires and climate change, said Monica Emelko, a University of Waterloo professor who researches wildfires’ impacts on safe drinking water.

Wildfires are a natural part of many regions’ ecosystems and are caused by lightning strikes and human activities, she said. The human activities can include things such as campfires, cigarettes discarded in brush, recreational vehicle use in dry vegetation and arson, said Natural Resources Canada spokesperson Barre Campbell.

“The linkage between climate change and wildfire does not focus on wildfire starts and ignitions,” Emelko said. “Rather, we know that climate change has led to conditions on the landscape that enable larger, more severe wildfires.”

Those conditions were evident in Canada last year, said Bergeron.

“Climate change had a significant impact this season in Quebec. Widespread drought combined with a devastating lightning line are responsible for this historic season,” Bergeron said.

Bergeron said during a normal season, about 80% of forest fires are caused by humans, and 20% by lightning. In 2023, though, about 53% of Quebec’s forest fires were caused by lightning, and those fires accounted for more than 99% of the area burned.

Campbell, the Natural Resources Canada spokesperson, said climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity, duration, size and timing of extreme wildfires.

“This is mainly due to climate change intensifying the conditions that can create and feed extreme fire events, such as loss of soil moisture, decreases in precipitation, drier forest conditions, and higher temperatures,” Campbell said.

An August 2023 study by World Weather Attribution, an academic group that studies climate change’s possible effects on extreme weather, looked at Canada’s wildfires from May through July.

Researchers found that climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme fire weather conditions in Eastern Canada.

“Climate change made the cumulative severity of Quebec’s 2023 fire season to the end of July around 50% more intense, and seasons of this severity at least seven times more likely to occur,” the study’s authors wrote.

Clair Barnes, a research associate at Imperial College of London and the study’s lead author, said climate scientists don’t suggest climate change is igniting fires, but that it makes the region warmer and the vegetation drier.

“This increased fuel availability made it much more likely that the fires would spread and become more severe,” Barnes said.

In 2023, Canada had its warmest May-through-June period since 1940. Warm, dry conditions, along with continuous winds, “fueled extensive fire spread,” they wrote.

“​​Changes in fire weather are associated with an increase in temperature and decrease in humidity, both of which are driven by human-induced warming,” the study said.

Emelko said the number of wildfires is not increasing, but the number of large “megafires” is rising. They are also happening in regions historically not prone to wildfires, she said.

“Any one regional attempt to set fires would be inconsequential to the large amount of scientific data that exist globally” about climate change’s impact on wildfires, she said.

“Regardless of whether arson led to the fire starts, climate change has led to conditions on the landscape that contribute to, not exclusively cause, the increased occurrence of larger, more severe wildfires,” Emelko said.

Our ruling

An Instagram post said arson, not climate change, caused Canada’s record 2023 wildfire season. 

The number of fires set by one man, and the amount of land that burned as a result, are only a fraction of the fires and acreage lost to wildfires in Canada last year. The post misunderstands the scientific discussion about climate change and wildfires, experts said.

Although wildfires are generally started by lightning strikes or human activities, including arson, climate change has created conditions that increase the fires’ intensity and severity, researchers say.

We rate the claim False.