Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
The Federal Aviation Administration regularly restricts the airspace over areas affected by natural disasters to allow rescue and relief efforts to take place. But this routine activity has sparked misleading posts online that claimed volunteer drone operators were banned from helping in recovery efforts following Hurricane Helene.
Full Story
The Federal Aviation Administration is tasked with restricting the use of airspace following natural disasters in order to allow for rescue and recovery efforts to take precedence.
The FAA issues Temporary Flight Restrictions, or TFRs, at the request of local authorities following natural disasters.
This standard practice also occurred during the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which hit the Gulf Coast of Florida on Sept. 26 and subsequently caused widespread flooding and destruction in parts of Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Virginia.
But some posts on social media have exaggerated or misrepresented the restrictions, claiming that “drones are banned.” Conservative influencer Jack Posobiec told his 2.7 million X followers on Oct. 3 that Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg “announces private drones are RESTRICTED from flying over hurricane areas. This prevents civilian volunteers from locating victims in need or showing footage of the disaster.”
Posobiec included a video clip that the Department of Transportation had posted the day before of Buttigieg talking about recovery efforts, but he misrepresented what the secretary was saying.
Buttigieg had said that there were some safety issues to be aware of. “For example, temporary flight restrictions to make sure that the airspace is clear for any flights or drone activity that might be involved in helping to allow those emergency responders to do their job,” he said.
He never said that civilian volunteers would be prevented from assisting emergency workers. The Department of Transportation post did include text that warned drone pilots not to fly near where rescue efforts were taking place and advised them to keep track of restrictions.
But nothing about this is new — this is in line with advice that usually follows natural disasters. For example, while former President Donald Trump was in office, the FAA issued TFRs to allow for relief efforts in Texas and Louisiana due to Hurricane Laura in August 2020.
The Department of Transportation post “was referring to temporary flight restrictions in limited parts of the affected area,” restrictions that had been lifted by the end of the day on Oct. 2, department spokesman Sean Manning told us in an email.
And, he specified, those restrictions — as usual — did not preclude civilian volunteers from working with local authorities.
“The FAA is not restricting access for recovery operations,” the administration said in a statement provided to FactCheck.org. “The FAA is coordinating closely with state and local officials to make sure everyone is operating safely in very crowded and congested airspace.”
The statement went on to explain that the FAA issues TFRs at the request of local authorities who need the airspace clear in order to conduct rescue and recovery efforts, emphasizing that the TFRs “do not ban aircraft, including drones, from providing disaster relief and recovery assistance.” Volunteers can still use the restricted airspace as long as they have coordinated with the agencies conducting relief work, according to the FAA.
So, suggestions that federal agencies hindered relief efforts following Hurricane Helene by temporarily restricting some airspace are based on a misrepresentation of standard procedure.
Sources
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14. Chapter 1. Temporary flight restrictions in the vicinity of disaster/hazard areas. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.
U.S. Department of Transportation (@USDOT). “Drone pilots: Do not fly your drone near or around rescue and recovery efforts for Hurricane Helene. Interfering with emergency response operations impacts search and rescue operations on the ground.” X. 2 Oct 2024.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. TFR data. Accessed 9 Oct 2024.
The FAA (@FAANews). “Attention general aviation and drone pilots: The FAA has issued temporary flight restrictions to support #HurricaneLaura2020 relief efforts in Louisiana and Texas.” Twitter. 27 Aug 2020.
Manning, Sean. Spokesman, U.S. Department of Transportation. Email to FactCheck.org. 3 Oct 2024.
Federal Aviation Administration. Email to FactCheck.org. 4 Oct 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
An ad from Vice President Kamala Harris features a Pennsylvania farming couple who say they are “lifelong Republicans” but are voting for Harris. Social media users, citing a video from an Australian news site, falsely claim the couple are “actors” and Democratic donors. The news site has corrected its report.
Full Story
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign released an ad titled “Not Again” on Sept. 24 targeting voters in rural Pennsylvania, where former President Donald Trump received significant support in the 2016 and 2020 elections. (Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016, but lost in 2020.)
The ad features Kristina and Robert Lange, owners of Sugartown Strawberries Farm in Malvern, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia in Chester County. The Langes, who describe themselves as “lifelong Republicans,” say that they will be voting for Harris in the upcoming election.
“I voted for [Trump] twice,” Robert Lange says in the ad. “I won’t vote for him again.”
“Donald Trump divides people,” Kristina Lange says, as the ad flashes Trump’s mugshot after he was indicted in Georgia and photos from the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017.
Following the release of the ad, the Langes said they were the target of harassment, including threatening calls to their business.
The Langes have also become the target of misinformation. Social media users have claimed that Robert and Kristina Lange are not farmers and lifelong Republicans, as they say in the ad, but actors with a history of supporting Democrats.
An Oct. 2 Instagram post shared a clip from Sky News Australia, a conservative news channel, with the caption, “Kamala campaign LIES AGAIN!!!”
In the Sept. 26 clip, Sky News host Rita Panahi said, “This pair of farmers shown in the ad appear to in fact be two actors, Robert Lange and Kristina Chadwick, and they have an extensive history… of donating to the Democrats and leftist causes, dating back to at least 2016.”
An Oct. 3 Instagram post shared the same clip, with the caption, “Harris-Walz Campaign BUSTED For Using Paid Actors?”
But the Langes are not actors — or, at least, not professional actors. In 2022, the couple wrote and produced a film, “Hayride to Hell,” in which they appeared in minor roles. Robert Lange told 6ABC in Philadelphia at the time that the farm, which served as the set for the film, had been in his family since 1896.
In 2014, Robert Lange, known locally as Farmer Bob, was named Farmer of the Year by the Chester County Board of Commissioners.
According to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan website that tracks money in politics, Robert Lange did donate $200 to the campaign of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Andrew Dinniman, a Chester County Democrat, in 2012. But he hasn’t made a donation to a Democrat — or any candidate– since then.
Kristina Lange, whose maiden name is Chadwick, has no history of donations, according to OpenSecrets.
The FEC records referenced in the Sky News report are different from the Robert Langes and a Kristina Chadwick from other cities in Pennsylvania.
In 2019, Robert Lange successfully ran for a seat on the Willistown Township Board of Supervisors as a Republican. He is currently the board chair.
On Oct. 1, Sky News issued a correction to its previous reporting: “We correct the record that the people involved are not actors and do not appear to be Democrat donors.”
Sources
Alvarez, Priscilla. “Harris campaign targets red, rural counties as it tries to narrow Trump’s margins.” CNN. 3 Oct 2024.
Barnett, Emma. “‘Demstock’ brings together rural Pennsylvania Democrats who want to ‘jam things up’ for Trump.” NBC. 26 Aug 2024.
Chester County Agricultural Development Council. “Chester County Commissioners present agricultural rewards.” Press release. 19 Sep 2014.
Farley, Robert, et al. “Q&A on Trump’s Jan. 6 Indictment.” FactCheck.org. 1 Aug 2023.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Social media posts misleadingly claim that “Trump’s Project 2025 will end” the Federal Emergency Management Agency and provide “ZERO federal help” to disaster victims. Project 2025 is not former President Donald Trump’s plan, and there is no evidence that he would “end” FEMA. In fact, his administration spent tens of billions on disaster aid when he was president.
Full Story
Hurricane Helene, which made landfall on Sept. 26 in northwest Florida, caused destruction across six southeastern states and has claimed at least 231 lives, making it one of the deadliest hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland since Hurricane Katrina.
Federal assistance for Helene exceeded $344 million by Oct. 9, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency has deployed thousands of personnel, assessed damage and provided essential aid, including meals, water, generators and tarps, to the affected regions. The extent of the damage will require “a multibillion-dollar, multiyear recovery” effort, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said.
As Hurricane Milton slammed into Florida’s western coast on the evening of Oct. 9 with what the National Weather Service called a “life-threatening” storm surge, FEMA is in the eye of a misinformation storm. (The spread of false claims has become so pervasive that the agency has launched a dedicated “Rumor Response” page for Hurricane Helene, following similar pages launched during the COVID-19 pandemic and previous disasters.)
Recent social media posts have made misleading claims about the future of FEMA if former President Donald Trump returns to the White House.
“Trumps Project 2025 will end FEMA,” an Oct. 2 Threads post claimed.
“If Donald Trump were president today, he would tell North Carolina they’re on their own and getting ZERO federal help. How do we know this? It’s in Project 2025,” another Threads user wrote.
Project 2025, which is being led and funded by the conservative Heritage Foundation, is a detailed plan to reduce the size and scope of government under “the next conservative President.” We have written extensively about the project and have debunked false and misleading claims about it.
Although portions of it were developed by former Trump aides, Project 2025 isn’t a Trump campaign document and the former president has distanced himself from it.
“I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said during the Sept. 10 debate. “This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference. I have nothing to do [with it].”
There also is no evidence to support the claim that Trump would “end FEMA” or provide “zero federal help” if he gets back into office.
Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told us in an email that the social media claims are “fake news.”
During his presidency, Trump authorized tens of billions in disaster assistance through FEMA. From fiscal years 2017 to 2020, a period spanning part of former President Barack Obama’s tenure and most of Trump’s time in office, FEMA spent nearly $94 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In FY2018 alone, the agency allocated nearly $23 billion for recovery efforts following three major hurricanes in the 2017 hurricane season: Harvey, Irma and Maria.
FEMA said the number of applications for assistance during Harvey was “one of the highest in FEMA history.” Within just 30 days, more than $1.5 billion in federal aid was distributed to Texans affected by the storm, covering assistance grants, low-interest disaster loans and advance payments for flood insurance, according to FEMA.
Contrary to social media claims, Trump also has made comments during the current presidential campaign that indicate he will continue to support federal disaster assistance.
Trump has criticized the Biden administration for not doing enough during Hurricane Helene. Trump posted on Truth Social on Oct. 9, saying, “They can’t get anything done properly, but I will make up for lost time, and do it right, when I get there.”
Project 2025 isn’t calling for the elimination of FEMA, either, although experts say the changes it proposes would undermine the agency.
“Rather than ‘cutting’ FEMA, Project 2025 is advocating for a realignment of the agency’s mission and focus – away from DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] and climate change initiatives and restoring it to that of helping people before, during, and after disasters,” a Project 2025 spokesperson told us in an email.
The project’s policy agenda, which was published online in “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” proposes changes to FEMA in a chapter written by Ken Cuccinelli, who served as acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration. It recommends that FEMA “be moved to the Department of the Interior or, if combined with the [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency], to the Department of Transportation.”
“FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt,” Project 2025 says.
The plan calls for “reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs.”
Experts: Project 2025 Would Weaken FEMA
Experts say claims on social media that Project 2025 will “end FEMA” are not accurate, but the plan’s proposed changes to FEMA’s structure could undermine its ability to effectively respond to disasters.
“This idea that Project 2025 and Trump would eliminate FEMA is just not true,” Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, told us in a phone interview. “There clearly is a role for FEMA. It’s just a reduced role in a reduced capacity, which I think would not be good for equity, would not be good for the increasing hazards that we face.”
“I think what [Project 2025} would do was really bring it back to where it was at the time of Hurricane Katrina. … And we all know how that worked out,” Schlegelmilch said, referring to FEMA’s failures in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005.
FEMA was established in 1979 by then-President Jimmy Carter to coordinate the federal government’s response to disasters and emergencies. Initially, it was an independent agency focused on disaster response and recovery efforts. In 2003, FEMA was transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security as part of a broader effort to streamline and enhance national security and emergency management after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“So at that time, FEMA had been moved under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Homeland Security became much more terrorism-oriented, much more infrastructure-oriented. And FEMA was sort of demoted, kind of within that structure,” Schlegelmilch said.
Dr. Samantha Montano, assistant professor of emergency management at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, was also critical of Project 2025’s proposals for FEMA.
“There is nothing in Project 2025 that aligns with the policy recommendations that come out of the empirical research that we have on what makes emergency management effective,” Montano told us in a phone interview.
“So currently, it’s within DHS, which is not effective, and moving it to another agency, whether it’s [the Department of] Interior or the Department of Transportation, would not solve the problem. It would just shuffle it into another agency,” Montano said. “It is the belief of many in emergency management that FEMA is most effective when it is an independent cabinet-level agency.”
Regarding Project 2025’s proposal on shifting most of FEMA’s preparedness and response costs to the states, Montano said, “I think this would be absolutely devastating, especially for small, poorer communities and states. The vast majority of states do not have the resources to fund their own responses and recoveries.”
Sources
Congressional Budget Office. “FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Budgetary History and Projections.” November 2022.
Contorno, Steve. “Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved.” CNN. 11 Jul 2024.
Czachor, Emily Mae. “Hurricane Milton makes landfall as Category 3 on Florida’s west coast.” CBS News. 10 Oct 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Federal Assistance for Hurricane Helene Exceeds $344 Million as FEMA Expands Dual Response Efforts as Hurricane Milton Forecast to Make Landfall This Evening.” 9 Oct 2024.
Keefe, Eliza. “Posts Misrepresent Federal Response, Funding for Hurricane Helene Victims.” FactCheck.org. 8 Oct 2024.
Kiely, Eugene, D’Angelo Gore and Robert Farley. “A Guide to Project 2025.” FactCheck.org. 10 Sep 2024.
Leavitt, Karoline. Spokesperson, Donald J. Trump for President 2024. Email to FactCheck.org. 9 Oct 2024.
Montano, Samantha. Assistant professor of emergency management, Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 7 Oct 2024.
National Weather Service Forecast Office, Tampa Bay Area, Florida. “Key Messages for Hurricane Milton.” 8 Oct 2024.
Project 2025. “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” Accessed 8 Oct 2024.
Sanchez, Ray. “‘The power of water.’ How Helene devastated western North Carolina and left communities in ruins.” CNN. 6 Oct 2024
Schlegelmilch, Jeffrey. Director, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, Columbia Climate School. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 7 Oct 2024.
Trump, Donald. “Western North Carolina, and the whole state, for that matter, has been totally and incompetently mismanaged by Harris/Biden. They can’t get anything done properly, but I will make up for lost time, and do it right, when I get there.” Truth Social. 9 Oct 2024.
White House. “Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned.” Sep 2005.
White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas En Route Greenville, SC.” 2 Oct 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has provided more than $210 million in immediate assistance to communities affected by Hurricane Helene, which the Department of Homeland Security secretary has described as the start of “a multibillion-dollar, multiyear recovery.” Social media posts make the false claim that storm victims are getting “only $750,” and misleadingly compare that to foreign aid.
Full Story
Communities across the southeastern United States suffered catastrophic damage and loss of life after Hurricane Helene made landfall near Perry, Florida, as a Category 4 storm on Sept. 26.
With more than 230 confirmed dead by Oct. 8 and many still missing, Helene ranks as the second-deadliest hurricane to hit the contiguous United States over the last 50 years. Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest, with a toll of at least 1,833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency directs the federal response to all disasters warranting a presidential disaster declaration. It is operating alongside state, local and tribal partners to address property wreckage and restore access to food, potable water, power, cellular reception and transportation infrastructure. The agency began preparing commodities and equipment before the storm made landfall.
As of Oct. 8, FEMA had provided more than $210 million in federal assistance and supplied more than 15.6 million meals, over 13.9 million liters of water, 157 generators and more than 505,000 tarps to affected communities across Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee – the six states for which President Joe Biden has approved major disaster declarations. Almost 7,000 federal personnel, including FEMA staff, have been deployed to the region.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the magnitude of the disaster will require “a multibillion-dollar, multiyear recovery” effort. “We have towns that have disappeared, literally,” he said.
But social media posts have spread false claims that the federal government is doing little or nothing to help storm survivors, while spending billions on foreign aid.
In a misleading Oct. 3 Instagram post, conservative commentator Benny Johnson wrote, “We can send BILLIONS to Ukraine but Americans who have lost everything only get $750 dollars?!” The post has received more than 87,000 likes.
Former President Donald Trump echoed that false claim at his Oct. 5 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
“They’re offering them $750 to people whose homes have been washed away. And yet we send tens of billions of dollars to foreign countries that most people have never heard of,” he said. “Think of it. We give foreign countries hundreds of billions of dollars, and we’re handing North Carolina $750.” (See a related story, “Trump’s False Claim of Stolen Disaster Relief Funds.”)
Another post falsely suggested that FEMA hasn’t done anything to help communities battered by the storm. The Threads user asked, “Is this true: No FEMA, Red Cross, government agencies, NOTHING for Helene?? What a country.” The post is no longer available.
Other posts shared on X and Instagram claimed FEMA lacks sufficient funding to address future hurricanes, misleadingly suggesting that money that could be spent on disaster relief is instead going to foreign countries. The posts, which have received about 3.3 million views on X and over 100,000 likes across both platforms, read: “The Biden Harris regime is now saying FEMA does NOT have enough funds to make it through Hurricane season. RIGHT AFTER giving BILLIONS more to Ukraine.”
Funds Directed Specifically to Disaster Relief
The $750 payment mentioned by Trump and the social media posts represents only one form of immediate federal assistance available to storm survivors, and FEMA has said it has sufficient funding to support immediate response and recovery needs.
In addition, contrary to the online claims, FEMA is funded through a dedicated fund for disaster relief efforts.
FEMA launched a rumor response page to tackle a post-Helene flurry of misinformation. The White House also issued a memo on Oct. 5 addressing falsehoods about the government’s response to the hurricane.
“FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund has enough funding to support Hurricane Helene efforts and FEMA has what it needs for immediate response and recovery efforts,” the agency says.
Biden echoed this sentiment in an Oct. 4 letter to Congress. But he did address the need for future funding. The federal government is currently operating under a short-term funding bill, which funds government operations through Dec. 20.
“While FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund has the resources it requires right now to meet immediate needs, the fund does face a shortfall at the end of the year,” Biden said. “Without additional funding, FEMA would be required to forego longer-term recovery activities in favor of meeting urgent needs.”
“The Congress should provide FEMA additional resources to avoid forcing that kind of unnecessary trade-off and to give the communities we serve the certainty of knowing that help will be ongoing, both for the short- and long-term,” he said.
FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, or DRF, is provided by Congress through both annual discretionary appropriations and supplemental appropriations granted in response to certain major disasters. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Congress allocated $381 billion to the DRF between 1992 and 2021. Almost three-quarters of this total was granted through supplemental appropriations.
As a dedicated federal spending account for disaster efforts, “no money is being diverted” from the DRF “to other non-disaster related efforts,” FEMA said.
U.S. military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine has been provided by Congress since February 2022 through other supplemental appropriations.
FEMA uses the DRF to finance both short- and long-term response and recovery activities, including debris removal, food and medical aid distribution, the Individual Assistance Program, and future disaster mitigation projects. The $750 payment is an initial payment survivors may receive while FEMA determines eligibility for its many other offerings within the Individual Assistance Program.
“This [$750] is a type of assistance that you may be approved for soon after you apply, called Serious Needs Assistance. It is an upfront, flexible payment to help cover essential items like food, water, baby formula, breastfeeding supplies, medication and other emergency supplies,” the agency’s rumor response page explains.
Additional forms of assistance address medical expenses, temporary housing needs and home repair costs, among other needs.
Eligible individuals can apply for assistance by calling the FEMA helpline at 1-800-621-3362, visiting disasterassistance.gov or downloading the FEMA app.
Sources
Arabia, Christina, et al. “U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine.” Congressional Research Service. 22 May 2024.
Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas, and Kate Selig. “Still Searching for Their Loved Ones, a Week After Hurricane Helene.” New York Times. 4 Oct 2024.
Bomprezzi, Peitro, et al. “Ukraine Support Tracker.” Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Accessed 8 Oct 2024.
Ebensberger, Richard. “FEMA prepares for Hurricane Helene’s landfall; stands up incident support base at Maxwell AFB.” Maxwell Air Force Base. 25 Sep 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “As Federal Assistance for Hurricane Helene Exceeds $210 Million, FEMA Prepares for Dual Response with Hurricane Milton Strengthening as it Moves Toward Gulf Coast of Florida.” 8 Oct 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “FEMA Launches Web Page to Respond to Rumors and Confirm the Facts Related to Hurricane Helene Response and Recovery.” Press release. 4 Oct 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “How a Disaster Gets Declared.” 22 Jul 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “How FEMA Works.” 23 Jan 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “Hurricane Helene: Rumor Response.” Accessed 6 Oct 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “Individuals and Households Program.” Press release. 22 Mar 2024.
Federal Emergency Management Administration. “When can I apply for Individual Assistance?” 16 May 2023.
Gore, D’Angelo. “Trump’s False Claim of Stolen Disaster Relief Funds.” FactCheck.org. 8 Oct 2024.
Sarnoff, Leah and Daniel Amarante. “Tracking Hurricane Helen’s destruction: Path, storm surge and rescue efforts.” ABC News. 5 Oct 2024.
Shapiro, Emily, et al. “Hurricane Helene live updates: Death toll surpasses 230 as rescue efforts continue.” ABC News. 8 Oct 2024.
Sperl, Jon. “FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Budgetary History and Projections.” Congressional Budget Office. 22 Nov 2022.
Sutton, Joe, et al. “Helene death toll rises to at least 227 across 6 states.” CNN. 5 Oct 2024.
Ukraine Oversight. Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve. “Funding.” Accessed 8 Oct 2024.
Webster, Elizabeth. “FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview.” Congressional Research Service. 17 Apr 2024.
White House. “Interested Parties Memo: Fighting Hurricane Helene Falsehoods with Facts.” 5 Oct 2024.
White House. “Letter to Congress on Disaster Needs.” 4 Oct 2024.
White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas En Route Greenville, SC.” 2 Oct 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz repeated some of the same false and misleading talking points that he and his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, have made before, including in recent debates.
Manufacturing jobs: Walz, who on Oct. 6 made his first appearance on Fox News since joining the Democratic ticket, misleadingly said former President “Donald Trump’s policies led to 180,000 manufacturing jobs leaving.”
Harris made a similar claim during her Sept. 10 debate with Trump. As we wrote at that time, the U.S. lost 178,000 manufacturing jobs during Trump’s term, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the vast majority of those job losses were due to the COVID-19 pandemic — not “Trump’s policies,” as Walz claimed. The U.S. added 419,000 manufacturing jobs in Trump’s first three years in office.
Unemployment rate: Walz also falsely claimed that when Trump “left office we had more people unemployed percentage-wise than the Great Depression.” Again, Harris made a similar claim during the presidential debate, when she said “Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.”
When Trump left office in January 2021, the unemployment rate was 6.4% — down from a pandemic peak of 14.8% in April 2020, when businesses, schools and other employers shut down to slow the spread of COVID-19. That’s not close to the high unemployment rate during the Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 to 1941.
BLS did not develop a methodology for defining unemployment and calculating the nation’s unemployment rate until the 1940s, but it has estimated that the unemployment rate during the Great Depression peaked in 1933 at 24.9%.
And, as we noted in our article on the presidential debate, the unemployment rate topped 6.4% for 65 straight months from October 2008 until March 2014, peaking at 10% in October 2009. That string of high unemployment was triggered by the so-called Great Recession, which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
Trump’s border wall: As he did in the vice presidential debate, Walz said Trump didn’t keep his promise to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico, falsely saying that the former president only built 2% of the border wall.
“He told us for four years that he would deal with this. He didn’t,” Walz said. “He didn’t build his wall — 2%. Mexico didn’t pay for it”
Mexico didn’t pay for the wall, but Trump built more than 2% of new wall across the border. As we wrote after the vice presidential debate, Walz arrived at his 2% figure by dividing 52 miles of new primary border wall (where none existed before) by 1,954 miles, which is the full length of the southwest land border. But Trump did not promise to build a wall across the entire border.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly spoke about the need for 1,000 miles of border wall. But since there was already 650 miles of fencing in place, Trump would have needed to build about 350 miles to keep his promise. By that measure, Trump completed almost 15% of the border wall he promised.
Walz’s comment also discounts the hundreds of miles of modern, 30-foot tall border barriers built to replace dilapidated or inadequate fencing, such as vehicle barriers that people can walk right through.
In all, Trump built 458 miles of a “border wall system,” including 373 miles of new fencing to replace existing primary and secondary border barriers, according to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report on Jan. 22, 2021. In addition to the 52 miles of new primary wall, 33 miles of new secondary wall were built under Trump where no secondary wall existed before, the report said.
In vitro fertilization: On a few occasions, Walz has inaccurately stated that he and his wife used in vitro fertilization, or IVF, to conceive their children, when in fact the couple used intrauterine insemination, or IUI. When asked about that, Walz repeated a false claim about Trump opposing IVF.
“I don’t think people care whether I used IUI or IVF when we talk about this,” Walz said. “What they understand is Donald Trump would resist those things.”
As we’ve written, Trump has repeatedly expressed support for IVF.
The use of IVF treatments became an issue this campaign cycle in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos used in IVF are children, and that couples could sue for the wrongful death of a minor when test tubes with frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed. Trump spoke out in a Feb. 23 social media post against the all-Republican court’s ruling, and has been consistent in his support since then.
“I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby,” he said in a campaign video in April.
In August, Trump even proposed mandating that the federal government or health insurance companies “pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment.”
The IUI treatments are not affected by the court ruling, because, as the name implies, the sperm is placed in the uterus during ovulation, so there are no frozen embryos that would be discarded if not used.
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.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency said that no funds intended for disaster relief have been used to pay for programs that respond to illegal immigration. But former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that the Biden administration “stole” money for hurricane recovery and spent it on housing for people in the U.S. illegally.
“This is false,” FEMA wrote on its “rumor response” page on Oct. 3. “No money is being diverted from disaster response needs. FEMA’s disaster response efforts and individual assistance is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, which is a dedicated fund for disaster efforts. Disaster Relief Fund money has not been diverted to other, non-disaster related efforts.”
However, that same day, Trump said otherwise at a Michigan rally while talking about how President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have responded to the devastation that Hurricane Helene caused in several southeastern states.
“[T]here’s nobody that’s handled a hurricane or storm worse than what they are doing right now,” Trump said. “Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants, many of whom should not be in our country.”
He went on to claim in his remarks that the administration was not able to provide hurricane relief to affected states and residents because they “stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season.”
Even after FEMA and news organizations had corrected Trump’s misinformation, he continued to make similar claims in public appearances. For instance, in an Oct. 4 town hall in North Carolina, one of the hardest hit states, Trump said that the federal government cannot help residents there because “we’re missing a billion dollars they gave … to the migrants that came in and now we don’t have the money.”
To be clear, federal law prohibits noncitizens from legally voting in federal elections, and there’s no evidence any disaster relief money is “missing.”
On its page responding to rumors about hurricane relief, FEMA says, “If you were affected by Helene, do not hesitate to apply for disaster assistance as there is a variety of help available for different needs.”
Separate Funding Accounts
Trump began making the false funding claims after Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, warned that FEMA, a DHS agency, may not have enough money to last for the remainder of the hurricane season, which started June 1 and goes until Nov. 30.
In an Oct. 2 press gaggle, a reporter asked Mayorkas a question about his confidence in the amount of funding that FEMA currently has for recovery efforts, and whether Congress may need to appropriate more money. In response, Mayorkas said: “We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have. We are expecting another hurricane hitting. We do not have the funds. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what is imminent.”
He went on to say that the agency has money for “the immediate needs right now,” because of a continuing budget resolution, “but that is not a stable source of supply, if you will.” He emphasized that this will be “a multibillion-dollar, multiyear recovery.”
As Mayorkas said, the federal government is currently operating on a continuing budget resolution because Congress has not passed appropriations bills for DHS and other federal departments for fiscal year 2025, which began Oct. 1. The stop-gap funding bill, which Biden signed in September, funds the government through Dec. 20.
While the continuing resolution included about $20 billion for disaster relief, E&E News reported that a FEMA financial report indicated that money may only last until January. When Congress passed the stopgap measure last month, lawmakers opted not to include any additional funding for hurricane relief.
For now, congressional leaders have decided to wait to work on a supplemental disaster spending package until Congress is back in session after the election in November.
After Mayorkas made his remarks, Trump and other critics began to focus on federal funding for the department’s Shelter and Services Program, claiming that money for the grant program was taken from the budget for responding to natural disasters. Some who made the claim got the inaccurate information from an Oct.1 Federalist story that misleadingly said: “The Biden-Harris administration took more than a billion tax dollars that had been allocated to the agency responsible for American disaster relief and used it to offer services for illegal immigrants.”
The Shelter and Services Program was created by Congress in 2023 specifically to make payments to “nonfederal entities that provide shelter and other eligible services to migrants encountered by and released from DHS custody,” as a Congressional Research Service report published that year explained. Congress authorized about $364 million for the program for fiscal year 2023, and increased the program’s appropriation to $650 million for fiscal year 2024.
As FEMA has said, that money was not rerouted from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, which is funded by Congress separately. For fiscal year 2024, which ended Sept. 30, the Disaster Relief Fund had almost $57 billion in total budget resources, including about $20 billion in initial appropriations from Congress and more than $25 billion in supplemental appropriations.
“As Secretary Mayorkas said, FEMA has the necessary resources to meet the immediate needs associated with Hurricane Helene and other disasters,” a DHS spokesperson has said in a statement to reporters. “The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA’s disaster-related authorities or funding streams.”
The money for migrant support came from the budget of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, according to the CRS. FEMA administers the grants in coordination with CBP.
Trump’s campaign also has pointed to funding for FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which was established in 1983 and existed until it was replaced by the Shelter and Services Program.
In an Oct. 7 post on its website, the Trump campaign, citing that program, said that the White House and the media “have repeatedly said that FEMA money is being used for illegal aliens.” The post included a hyperlink to video clips of a CNN reporter and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talking in September 2022 about the availability of federal EFSP funds to help support local governments that were dealing with an influx of migrants.
Although funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program was administered by FEMA, that money also was appropriated by Congress separate from funding for disaster relief. Furthermore, “Congress passed the first funding measure for EFSP assistance specifically for migrant support … in 2019,” when Trump was president, the CRS said in a 2023 report.
Trump’s DHS Repurposed Disaster Money
In fact, as other news outlets have noted, in 2019, during the Trump administration, DHS officials did take some money from FEMA’s disaster relief budget to address issues at the southern border.
In August that year, which was during hurricane season, the Associated Press reported that DHS announced that it “would transfer $155 million to create temporary facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border for holding hearings with the aim of moving asylum cases through the system faster.”
“The money,” according to lawmakers, “will come out of unobligated money from the base disaster relief fund at FEMA,” the AP’s story said.
So, Trump is falsely accusing the Biden-Harris administration of something that DHS did under Trump.
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.
Q: Does Kamala Harris support government-paid gender-affirming surgery for prison inmates and immigrant detainees?
A: The government must provide medical care to prisoners and immigrant detainees. Vice President Kamala Harris expressed support in a 2019 questionnaire for “medically necessary” gender-affirming care, including surgical care, for federal prisoners and detainees. She has not detailed her position in the current campaign.
FULL QUESTIONS
Does Kamala Harris support government paid transgender surgery for prison inmates and illegal immigrants?
TV shows an ad in which Kamala Harris says all transgender inmates should have access to medical care. Did she really say this? Does that mean treatment and/or surgery ?
FULL ANSWER
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
We’ve recently received a number of reader questions about Vice President Kamala Harris’ stance on providing gender-affirming surgeries for transgender prisoners and immigrants, often sparked by a campaign advertisement from her opponent, former President Donald Trump. A transgender person’s gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.
The U.S. Constitution requires that the government provide needed medical care for prisoners, according to a 1976 Supreme Court ruling. Transgender inmates in federal and state prisons have argued in court that this includes providing medically necessary gender-affirming care. Some federal and state prisoners have received gender-affirming surgeries following legal victories. So far, this has included two federal prisoners in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, according to an email from an agency spokesperson.
There are also government policies supporting necessary gender-affirming care for immigrant detainees, including hormone therapy, although we were unable to find any policy specifically recommending gender-affirming surgery or any records of such surgeries having occurred.
When she was running to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2019, Harris went on record in an American Civil Liberties Union candidate questionnaire as supporting medically necessary gender-affirming care for federal prisoners and immigrant detainees, including surgical care. She also expressed support for gender-affirming surgery for California state inmates on other occasions during her 2019 presidential run, taking some credit for working “behind the scenes” to get access to these surgeries for prisoners.
However, Harris has not clarified her exact position on gender-affirming care for prisoners and detainees during her current campaign, and Trump and his campaign have sometimes left out information on when and in what context Harris spoke about these topics. Trump’s statements also lack context on the small number of gender-affirming surgeries that prisoners have received and the legal basis for providing such care. Attempts by a presidential administration to roll back access to gender-affirming care for prisoners would likely meet legal challenges.
“It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Even the liberal media was shocked Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens,” a narrator says in the Trump campaign advertisement. “Kamala’s for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The ad stitches together two different sections of a 2019 interview to show Harris saying: “Surgery for prisoners … every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access.”
In that interview, Harris was specifically referring to her past efforts in California to secure access to gender-affirming surgery for inmates in state prison, although, as we’ve said, she did express support for access to medically necessary gender-affirming care for federal prisoners in her ACLU questionnaire response.
The Trump campaign has spent more than $11 million to run the ad on broadcast television in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., according to AdImpact, an advertising tracking service, as well as around $361,000 to run it on digital platforms.
Trump also alluded to Harris’ questionnaire response during the presidential debate on Sept. 10, a day after CNN published a story about her 2019 answers.
“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” Trump said. “This is a radical left liberal that would do this.”
He has since referenced the topic repeatedly. “Why does Kamala want to give transgender operations to convicted illegal migrants coming in and staying in detention cells?” Trump asked during a Sept. 27 campaign event in Walker, Michigan. “She said we will give them sex change operations. Now somebody would look at me and say that’s crazy. I’m sure that’s not true. No, no it’s 100% true. She wants to, wanted to, wants to give them.”
“She even endorsed free sex changes … and this was recently, she endorsed free sex changes for illegal aliens in detention centers all over our country at taxpayer expense,” Trump said at a Sept. 23 rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
In both of these two recent appearances, Trump also cited inflated costs for gender-affirming surgery, which we will discuss later.
But as we said previously, Harris has not expressed her current views, and her comments on gender-affirming care for detainees are five years old.
In the Sept. 9 CNN article that brought the ACLU questionnaire back into the news, a Harris campaign spokesperson declined to specify what her current position is on the issue.
The next day, when responding to a question about the ACLU questionnaire on Fox News the morning of the debate, the Harris campaign’s communications director, Michael Tyler, said, “That questionnaire — this is not what she is proposing, it’s not what she’s running on.”
The campaign did not provide further comment in response to our questions.
Harris’ History on Gender-Affirming Surgery for Prisoners in California
As a former California attorney general, Harris has been involved in legal cases on gender-affirming surgery for state prisoners.
Her office represented the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as it attempted to block gender-affirming surgery for a state inmate in 2015. The department ultimately came to an agreement to revise its policy on providing medically necessary gender-affirming surgery to prison inmates that same year, following a legal loss. In 2017, a transgender inmate in California became the first prisoner in the U.S. to be provided gender-affirming surgery.
San Quentin State Prison in California. Photo by San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images / Contributor
As of December 2022, 20 California inmates had received gender-affirming surgery, according to the nonprofit news organization CalMatters. Inmates in state prisons seeking gender-affirming surgeries have since succeeded in court cases in other states, leading to some gender-affirming surgeries.
During a January 2019 news conference at the outset of Harris’ first presidential run, the Washington Blade asked Harris about her record of “seeking to deny surgery for trans inmates” in California. Harris responded that as attorney general, “there are unfortunately situations that occurred where my clients took positions that were contrary to my beliefs.”
However, she took “full responsibility” for her office’s actions, before further indicating her support for gender-affirming care for inmates. “But on that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.
Harris or her representatives during the 2019 campaign continued to reiterate her work “behind the scenes” on the eventual California policy to provide gender-affirming surgery to some inmates.
This included an interview posted in October 2019 between Harris and Mara Kiesling, then executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund. Snippets of the interview are quoted in the Trump advertisement that is currently airing.
In the interview, Kiesling asked why transgender people should vote for Harris. As part of a much longer answer, Harris recalled learning that the California Department of Corrections was “standing in the way of surgery for prisoners.”
After learning about the case, Harris said, “I worked behind the scenes to not only make sure that that transgender woman got the services she was deserving. So it wasn’t only about that case. I made sure that they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have accessto the medical care that they desired and need.”
Harris’ Record on Gender-Affirming Care for Federal Prisoners
Although Trump’s advertisement takes Harris’ 2019 comments on transgender inmates out of context, she did give broader support for gender-affirming care for prisoners in response to the 2019 ACLU questionnaire.
The ACLU questionnaire asked, “As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”
Harris checked a box answering “Yes,” before elaborating:
Harris, 2019 ACLU questionnaire: It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates. I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.
At the time, no federal prisoner had received gender-affirming surgery. The first gender-affirming surgery was provided to a U.S. federal prisoner in 2022, after a federal court ruling stated that the government was required to provide this care. A second surgery took place in 2023.
Actions taken during the Biden-Harris administration have indicated some support for necessary medical care for transgender inmates. The Department of Justice has provided statements of interest in cases in which state prisoners have sought gender-affirming care. These statements note that, among other legal bases, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires adequate care for prisoners, including those with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis that some but not all transgender people have, and refers to intense distress over the mismatch between a person’s sex assigned at birth and their gender identity.
In 2022, the BOP brought back a Transgender Offender Manual for how to treat federal prisoners, following a Trump-era hiatus for the document. In response to questions about gender-affirming care, a BOP spokesperson sent us a link to this document. Among other policies, the document now addresses gender-affirming surgery.
“For transgender inmates in Bureau custody, surgery may be the final stage in the transition process and is generally considered only after one year of clear conduct and compliance with mental health, medical, and programming services at the gender affirming facility,” the document reads, while acknowledging that not all transgender inmates even want these surgeries.
Nor is asking for gender-affirming surgery a guarantee that a federal prisoner will get it. The manual simply says that the requests will be considered. The BOP spokesperson confirmed to us that two federal inmates have gotten these surgeries to date. There are 1,461 transgender female prisoners and 770 transgender male prisoners currently in the custody of BOP, according to the agency.
Context on Gender-Affirming Care for Immigrant Detainees
In his recent comments on free “sex change” surgeries, Trump has often focused on the idea that Harris wants to give these surgeries to immigrant detainees.
However, as we’ve said, we weren’t able to find a record of immigrant detainees having gotten these surgeries.
Immigrants who are detained while trying to enter the U.S. may be held by Customs and Border Patrol. These detainees should “generally not be held for longer than 72 hours in CBP hold rooms or holding facilities,” according to the agency. A report found that people were in custody for an average of 62 to 74 hours between October 2022 and June 2023, depending on the type of CBP facility.
People may be in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for longer, but stays are still supposed to be relatively short. The average length of stay for a person detained by ICE in 2024 so far is 47 days. As of Sept. 8, there have been 231 transgender detainees booked into ICE custody in 2024, and there are currently 47 transgender people in custody, according to ICE statistics, although groups that advocate for transgender people in detention have said the ICE statistics are probably an undercount.
In a statement to FactCheck.org, an ICE spokesperson mentioned emergent care needs, a phrase typically used to refer to health care that is needed immediately to stave off significant harm. “The agency recognizes that detained transgender noncitizens have unique needs while in ICE custody,” the spokesperson said in an email. “In response to those needs, we have developed structures within our operation to safeguard their rights and ensure their emergent care needs are met from the moment they arrive and throughout the entirety of their stay.”
Gender-affirming surgery is not usually a quick process. As we’ve said, there is a waiting period of one year before federal inmates can even seek gender-affirming surgery. Experts also told The 19th, a nonprofit news site that writes about gender issues, that a waiting period for gender-affirming surgery is common whether someone is in a prison or not.
A 2015 ICE memorandum outlines policies for transgender detainees, including some recommendations on gender-affirming care, Dr. Elizabeth Kvach, a Colorado family physician with experience providing medical care to transgender individuals in immigration detention, told us. This includes recommendations that detainees be given access to “mental health care and other transgender-related health care and medication (such as hormone therapy) based on medical need.”
Kvach said that in her experience in Colorado, transgender detainees are given access, if desired, to “evaluation for initiation and/or continuation of hormone therapy for affirmation of their gender identity while detained.” However, she was not aware of instances of care extending to gender-affirming surgery.
“To the best of my knowledge, in the decade I have been doing this work in Colorado there have been no transgender detainees who have sought or received gender affirming surgeries while in immigration detention,” Kvach said, while acknowledging that she “cannot speak to practices in other detention facilities or states.”
Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, also shared a recent report indicating that some transgender and other detainees had trouble getting hormone therapy or other medical care, “let alone surgical treatments,” she said, although she noted that only a small number of people were interviewed.
For the report, representatives of nonprofit organizations interviewed 41 LGBTQ+ and HIV-positive immigrants pursuing asylum and held by CBP and ICE, including 14 people identifying as transgender. Four transgender detainees reported trouble getting hormone therapy, while a transgender woman who had previously gotten breast implants told a story of receiving delayed and inadequate medical care after one of her implants burst while in ICE custody.
“What we’re seeing there is an enormous unmet need for even basic health care,” Kellan Baker, a health services researcher with expertise in cost-related issues and transgender health, told us of the experience of immigrants in detention. Baker is executive director of Whitman-Walker Institute, a research and policy institute affiliated with a Washington, D.C., community health center. The institute’s mission is “advancing the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ people, people living with HIV, and other groups facing barriers to quality care.”
“No one is taking advantage of being in a prison system or in immigration detention to try to get care that they don’t need,” he said.
Trump Exaggerates Cost of Gender-Affirming Surgery
In recent appearances, Trump has mentioned the cost of providing “sex change” surgery. But Baker said that his estimates are too high.
“They’re in a detention cell and a man wants to transition into womanhood, and [Harris] is willing to do that and give very expensive operations, by the way, hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Trump said during his Sept. 27 appearance in Walker, Michigan.
Trump was even more specific in his Sept. 23 Indiana, Pennsylvania, speech. “You’re being held in a detention center, and you say, ‘I want to change. I want to become a woman.’ And they have to give you the operation. Which is an immensely expensive operation on top of everything else — $250,000 at least, and then all the drugs involved and everything else,” Trump said.
As we’ve said, we didn’t find reports of anyone getting gender-affirming surgery in CBP or ICE detention, although a limited number of these surgeries have been done in state and federal prisons.
Baker said that there is “very little data” on prices paid for medical care within prison systems. But his own research on amounts paid by private insurers for these surgeries found that the average cost for vaginoplasty in the U.S. is around $50,000.
Given that private insurance “tends to reimburse better” than a public program would, $50,000 “is probably significantly above what the cost of a similar procedure in the prison system would be,” Baker said.
Baker also pointed out that there aren’t that many transgender people in prison to begin with and that not every person is going to need gender-affirming surgery. “Typically what folks need in incarceration settings are just basic supplies and supports, like the right kind of clothing … and medications – so hormone therapy, for example, as well as mental health support, if they need it,” he said. Further, especially compared with some other drugs a prisoner might need for medical care in general, he said, hormone therapy is “unbelievably cheap.”
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.
Sources
Aldrich, Jennifer et al. “Gender-Affirming Care, Incarceration, and the Eighth Amendment.” AMA Journal of Ethics. June 2023.
Federal Bureau of Prisons Spokesperson. Email with FactCheck.org. 25 Sep 2024.
Norwood, Candice and Kate Sosin. “Has the Biden Administration Made Gender-Affirming Surgery Accessible for Federal Prisons? Officials Won’t Say.” The 19th. 9 Mar 2023.
Homan, Thomas. “Transgender Care Memorandum.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 19 Jun 2015.
“ACLU Rights for All Candidate Questionnaire 2019.” ACLU website. Accessed 4 Oct 2024.
Gilchrist, Tracy E. “Kamala Harris on Denying Gender Affirmation Surgery to Trans Inmates.” Advocate. 20 Sep 2019.
NCTE Action Fund (@ncteactionfund5828). “Transform the White House: Sen. Kamala Harris.” YouTube. 18 Oct 2019.
“Access.” AdImpact. Accessed 4 Oct 2024.
Kaczynski, Andrew. “KFILE: Harris Pledged Support in 2019 to Cut ICE Funding and Provide Transgender Surgery to Detained Migrants.” CNN. 9 Sep 2024.
NBC News (@NBCNews). “WATCH: Presidential Debate: Harris v. Trump Hosted by ABC News.” YouTube. 10 Sep 2024.
Washington Post (@WashingtonPost). “Trump delivers remarks in New York.” YouTube. 26 Sep 2024.
FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth (@fox4news). “Trump Rally in North Carolina: FULL SPEECH.” YouTube. 21 Sep 2024.
“Donald Trump Rally on 9/18/24 in Uniondale.” Rev.com. 19 Sep 2024.
Donald J Trump (@DonaldJTrumpforPresident). “LIVE: President Trump in Walker, MI.” YouTube. 27 Sep 2024.
Donald J Trump (@DonaldJTrumpforPresident). “LIVE: President Trump in Indiana, PA.” YouTube. 23 Sep 2024.
“Kamala Harris’ policy reversals in the spotlight ahead of presidential debate.” Fox News. 10 Sep 2024.
St. John, Paige. “Inmate Who Won Order for Sex Reassignment Surgery Recommended for Parole.” Los Angeles Times. 21 May 2015.
Pérez-Peña, Richard. “California Is First State to Adopt Sex Reassignment Surgery Policy for Prisoners.” The New York Times. 21 Oct 2015.
“Norsworthy v. Beard.” Transgender Law Center website. Accessed 4 Oct 2024.
Thompson, Don. “APNewsBreak: California Funds 1st US Inmate Sex Reassignment.” AP News. 7 Jan 2017.
Sosa, Anabel. “More California Prisoners Are Requesting Gender-Affirming Health Care, Including Surgeries.” CalMatters. 26 Jun 2023.
Vielmetti, Bruce. “Judge Orders Wisconsin to Provide Inmate with Long-Sought Gender Confirmation Surgery.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 11 Dec 2020.
Rose, Andy and Hollie Silverman. “A Transgender Female Inmate Received Her Gender Confirmation Surgery after a Three-Year Court Battle.” CNN. 29 July 2020.
Colombo, Hayleigh. “Federal Judge Rules Transgender Indiana Inmate Can Receive Gender-Affirming Surgery.” Indianapolis Star. 17 Sep 2024.
Diaz, Jaclyn. “A Trans Inmate Wins Health Care and Will Move to Women’s Prison after Suing Minnesota.” NPR. 1 June 2023.
Clark, Moe K. “Trans Women in Colorado Prisons to Receive Improved Care, Housing Standards under Historic Legal Settlement.” Denver Post. 2 Feb 2024.
Johnson, Chris. “Harris takes ‘full responsibility’ for briefs against surgery for trans inmates.” Washington Blade. 21 Jan 2019.
Johnson, Chris. “Despite Harris deal, few surgeries granted to trans inmates in California.” Washington Blade. 20 Nov 2019.
Ramirez, Marc. “Transgender Prisoner Who Fought for Gender-Affirming Care for All Inmates Undergoes Surgery.” USA Today. 6 Apr 2023.
“Ashley Diamond, Plaintiff, v. Timonthy Ward, et al., Defendants. Statement of Interest of the United States.” 22 Apr 2021.
“Jane Doe, Plaintiff, v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. Statement of Interest of the United States.” 8 Jan 2024.
“Autumn Cordellioné, also known as Jonathan Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, in her official capacity. Statement of Interest of the United States.” 20 Feb 2024.
Sosin, Kate. “Biden Administration Releases New Transgender Federal Prison Policy.” The 19th. 26 Jan 2022.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. “Transgender Offender Manual.” 13 Jan 2022.
“Short Term Detention.” Homeland Security. 11 Jan 2023.
“Detention Management.” ICE website. Accessed 4 Oct 2024.
ICE spokesperson. Email with FactCheck.org. 26 Sep 2024.
Kvach, Elizabeth. Email with FactCheck.org. 26 Sep 2024.
Doubossarskaia, Liza et al. “‘No Human Being Should Be Held There,’ The Mistreatment of LGBTQ and HIV-Positive People in U.S. Federal Immigration Jails.” Jun 2024.
Redfield, Elana. Email with FactCheck.org. 26 Sep 2024.
Baker, Kellan. Phone conversation with FactCheck.org. 27 Sep 2024.
Baker, Kellan and Arjee Restar. “Utilization and Costs of Gender-Affirming Care in a Commercially Insured Transgender Population.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2022.
In a classic example of how political ads mislead viewers by using out-of-context quotes, a TV ad from former President Donald Trump’s campaign cites the New York Times as saying Vice President Kamala Harris “is seeking to significantly raise taxes.” Period, end of sentence. The rest of that sentence in the Times said: “on the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.”
There’s more context that was left on the cutting room floor. The ad twice features a clip of Harris saying, “Taxes are going to have to go up.” In the July 2019 event, Harris actually said, “Estate taxes are going to have to go up for the richest Americans.”
The Trump ad, released Oct. 2, leaves the false impression that Harris has said she wants to broadly raise taxes on all income groups. It assumes, without explicitly saying so, that Harris’ “plan” is to let all of the individual tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire, as they are scheduled to do at the end of 2025. But Harris, who hasn’t detailed how she would handle that expiration, has said she “will make sure no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes” and will “roll back Trump’s tax cuts for the richest Americans,” as her economic policy book says.
The ad has aired in the swing states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada, according to AdImpact, a political ad tracking service.
Nearly every citation in the ad is problematic.
The ad begins with the New York Times quote on the screen, citing an Aug. 22 story. An announcer says: “Kamala Harris is going to significantly raise taxes.” But the Times’ story that day said she wouldn’t raise taxes on those earning under $400,000.
New York Times, Aug. 22: No one making less than $400,000 a year would see their taxes go up under the plan. Instead, Ms. Harris is seeking to significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
The ad then shows the truncated clip of Harris saying, “Taxes are going to have to go up.” As we said, the full quote makes a difference. At the July 2019 roundtable event in Davenport, Iowa, when Harris was running for president, she talked about repealing the 2017 tax law, which Trump signed, saying it “represent[ed] the top 1% and the biggest corporations in America.” (As we’ve written, the tax law benefited all income groups on average. In 2018, the top 1% of income earners got 20.5% of the benefits of the tax cuts, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis, but 82% of middle-income earners got a tax cut.)
Harris went on to talk about new tax credits she supported, and she said that “estate taxes” for the “richest Americans” would “have to go up,” not all taxes, as the Trump campaign ad makes it appear.
Harris, Iowa roundtable, July 16, 2019 (at the 15:27 mark): We also have to increase taxes for the top 1%, and that, part of that is going to be about repealing that tax bill they just passed. And also looking at estate taxes are going to have to go up for the richest Americans, and closing certain corporate loopholes, including the carried interest deductible and a number of other things that are about people not reporting income as income and therefore not being taxed on it as income, the way you and I are being taxed.
The Trump ad then claims: “Kamala’s plan will raise families’ taxes by nearly $2,600 a year,” citing the Tax Foundation on May 7. That’s not what the Tax Foundation said.
Instead, the Tax Foundation article analyzed the impact on taxpayers if the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expire at the end of 2025, as scheduled. (Republicans wrote the legislation to have most of the individual income tax provisions expire after 2025, so that it could be passed with a simple majority.) “Without congressional action, most taxpayers will see a notable tax increase relative to current policy in 2026,” the Tax Foundation said.
One of the authors of that article, Erica York, senior economist and research director of the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy, told us: “That is not our analysis of Harris’s tax proposals.” (The ad also cites the figure of $2,580, but the tax policy group estimated the nationwide average tax increase would be $2,853 per taxpayer if the TCJA fully expires.)
The Tax Foundation did publish a preliminary analysis of Harris’ tax proposals on Sept. 10, finding that her plans “would redistribute income from high earners to low earners.”
Among other policies, the analysis included Harris’ proposal to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%; restore the top individual income tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples; increase the long-term capital gains rate to 28% from 20% for households with taxable income of more than $1 million; eliminate taxes on tips for service industry workers; expand the child tax credit, including a $6,000 credit for newborns; and provide eligible first-time homebuyers with up to $25,000 in mortgage assistance.
Under Harris’ proposals, the Tax Foundation found: “The bottom 60 percent of earners would see increases in after-tax income in 2025, while the top 40 percent of earners would see decreases. After-tax income for the bottom quintile would increase by 16.5 percent, largely from expanded tax credits. In contrast, the top 1 percent of earners would experience a 9.5 percent decrease in after-tax income.”
The Tax Foundation also analyzed Trump’s proposals, and the Tax Policy Center published a guide to the candidates’ tax policies.
We asked the Trump campaign about the TV ad’s inherent claim that Harris would let all of the TCJA expire, given she has pledged not to raise taxes for people earning less than $400,000 a year. Spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer told us that Harris had voted against the TCJA and that she “has called for scrapping” the law entirely, “saying the U.S. should ‘get rid of the whole thing.’” The link, however, goes to a May 2019 article in the Hill. Harris did say that at the time, but the Hill reported that her campaign said she wanted to replace the TCJA with “legislation she has proposed that would involve nearly $3 trillion in refundable tax cuts primarily affecting the middle class.”
The TV ad does accurately cite a Sept. 10 CNBC article as saying that prices have gone up 19.4% since the start of the Biden-Harris administration. The cumulative price increase under Trump was 7.8%, according to Consumer Price Index data.
The ad ends by saying Trump “will cut taxes again. No taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security,” citing another New York Times article. Trump has proposed those ideas, as the Sept. 22 article said. He also has proposed universal tariffs on imported goods — ideas that, the Times said, could move the U.S. away from income taxes and toward a consumption tax on the goods Americans buy.
“Mr. Trump has floated ideas that, taken together, would fundamentally change the way Americans are taxed, eroding the income tax while embracing expansive tariffs as a way to raise federal revenue,” the Times reported.
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.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Springfield, Ohio, has been the target of misinformation about its Haitian immigrant population. Conservative commentators are now falsely claiming the mayor traveled to Haiti and he and other city officials received “kick-backs” for “importing” immigrants to Springfield. The mayor told us he has never been to Haiti nor has he received any “kickbacks.”
Full Story
Former President Donald Trump has spread misinformation about immigrants and asylum seekers crossing the U.S. border over the past several years. During the Sept. 10 presidential debate, as we wrote, Trump made the baseless claim that Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the dogs … They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice presidential nominee, also claimed on X that there had been reports of Haitians eating people’s pets in Springfield. In addition, Vance made an unfounded claim that immigrants were responsible for an 81% increase in murders in Springfield, as we’ve written.
Springfield has experienced an influx of immigrants who legally entered the country and moved to the city over the past few years. The city estimates about 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants now live in Ohio’s Clark County, where Springfield is located. Of that group, an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 are Haitian, according to the county’s health commissioner, CNN reported.
But the political discourse has prompted accounts on social media to espouse conspiracies to explain the immigration influx.
The conservative podcast Chicks on the Right posted a screenshot from a Sept. 12 post on X by former Fox News host Andrea Tantaros. Without providing any evidence, Tantaros claimed, “The Mayor of Springfield, OH has made multiple trips to Haiti. He, and the entire City Council, received financial kick-backs for importing $20,000+ illegal aliens. Its why they ignore the pleas of residents. Nationwide, politicians are profiting from mass illegal migration.”
The Chicks on the Right Instagram post received more than 28,000 likes.
Neither Chicks on the Right nor Andrea Tantaros responded to our requests for information to support their claims.
Springfield Mayor Rob Rue told us in an emailed statement: “I have never been to Haiti and I have never received financial ‘kick backs’ or even [been] involved with the transportation of immigrants into our city or even the US.”
Asked in a phone interview if he or the city of Springfield ever received any funding, grants or money related to bringing new Haitian residents to the city, Rue said: “No, absolutely not.”
Rue told us he spoke earlier this year with Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio about the need for federal funding that would allow the city to “reinforce” its infrastructure due to “a rapid increase” of its population. The mayor said the city is seeking additional support for its hospitals, school system, public safety forces, and infrastructure to accommodate the new residents, including additional translation support.
Rue said the city was not looking for a “bailout” or a per-resident fee when it asked for help. “We just need to be able to communicate with the individuals who are here and for the infrastructure,” he said.
After Springfield was thrust into the national spotlight by Trump and Vance, the city also asked Turner and other federal officials for additional funding to pay for increased security and police overtime to secure its schools, Rue told us. The false claims about the Haitian immigrants sparked a series of bomb threats that led to evacuations and the closing of city schools.
Rue said as a part-time mayor — who earns $14,680 annually — he does not have the ability to influence whether immigrants should move to the city, or even keep track of who’s coming. “No local government has that kind of control. That’s not how it works,” he said.
On its website, the city says, “No government entity is responsible for the influx of Haitians into Clark County. Once a person with Temporary Protected Status enters the country, they are free to locate wherever they choose.”
Only Congress is authorized to write laws affecting immigration, and the president has broad legal authority to control how immigration laws are enforced. Federal agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of State, and Citizenship and Immigration Services have the authority to enforce immigration laws, or permit immigrants or foreign visitors to live and work in the U.S.
Rue hasn’t received any campaign contributions since 2021, when he ran for reelection to the city commission and received 13 donations, ranging between $50 and $500 each, totaling $2,750, mostly from Springfield residents, according to his campaign filings with the Clark County Board of Elections.
Rue said as far as he’s aware, no one from the city manager’s office or the city commission – which is similar to a city council — has been to Haiti either.
Bridget Houston, a city commissioner, told us in an emailed statement responding to the social media claims: “Mayor Rue has never been to Haiti. Additionally, none of us ever have, or are currently receiving any financial kickbacks.”
“There has been no ‘importing’ immigrants as well — we are a city and cannot control our physical border and cannot control who lives or visits here. In fact, our Federal allocated dollars have gone down year over year. Most of the Haitians living in Springfield do have Federal documents as well that allow them to be here. Last, I will add that we are also required by the State of Ohio to undergo fraud training every year, and have to disclose all investments to the State of Ohio as well,” Houston said.
Sources
Astor, Maggie. “Trump Doubles Down on Migrants ‘Poisoning’ the Country.” New York Times. 17 Mar 2024.
Brewster, Shaquille, Peter Shaw and Daniella Silva. “Springfield children ‘fearful’ amid dozens of bomb threats after false migrant rumors.” NBC News. 19 Sep 2024.
Catalini, Mike, Julie Carr Smyth and Bruce Shipkowski. “Trump falsely accuses immigrants in Ohio of abducting and eating pets.” Associated Press. 11 Sep 2024.
City of Springfield. “Immigration FAQs.” Accessed 30 Sep 2024.
Clark County Board of Elections. “Campaign Finance Committee Information.” Accessed: 27 Sep 2024.
Forrest, Vicky. “Springfield mayor: Investigation into businesses, immigration continues.” Springfield News Sun. 12 Jul 2024.
Houston, Bridget. City commissioner, Springfield, Ohio. Email to FactCheck.org. 30 Sep 2024.
Kiely, Eugene, et al. “FactChecking the Harris-Trump Debate.” FactCheck.org. 11 Sep 2024.
Kiely, Eugene. “Vance’s Misleading Claim About Immigrants and Murders in Springfield, Ohio.” FactCheck.org. 20 Sep 2024.
National Immigration Law Center. “The President’s Broad Legal Authority to Act on Immigration.” 20 Aug 2014.
Rue, Rob. Mayor, Springfield, Ohio. Email and phone interview with FactCheck.org. 27 Sep 2024.
Shoichet, Catherine E. “‘Why Springfield?’ How a small Ohio city became home for thousands of Haitians.” CNN. 19 Sep 2024.
Thomas, Merlyn and Mike Wendling. “Trump repeats baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets.” BBC. 15 Sep 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Project 2025 proposes dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some social media posts misleadingly claim the project calls for closing the National Hurricane Center, a part of NOAA. A Heritage Foundation spokesperson said Project 2025 “does not call for eliminating the NHC,” though climate experts warned that the project’s proposals would hamper the NHC’s operations.
Full Story
More than 180 people have been confirmed dead as of Oct. 2 across six states following the catastrophic impact of Hurricane Helene, stretching from Florida’s Gulf Coast to the Appalachian Mountains in Virginia, according to CNN.
The National Hurricane Center, which is part of the National Weather Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has issued advisories and forecasts about the storm. In the midst of the hurricane, discussions about the future of the National Hurricane Center, or NHC, circulated on social media.
Some social media users misleadingly claimed that Project 2025, a policy agenda aimed at downsizing the federal government, has specifically called for the elimination of the NHC. Project 2025 was created and funded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy think tank, as we’ve written.
“As Hurricane Helene is upgraded to a Category 4, it might be a good time to remind you Project 2025 intends to close the National Hurricane Center,” posts on Threads and Instagram claimed on Sept. 26.
Project 2025 provides a blueprint for “the next conservative President” on federal operations, the tax system, immigration enforcement, social welfare programs, and energy policy, particularly regarding climate change.
Former President Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025. “I’m not going to read it,” Trump said during his presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. He also claimed to be unaware of who was behind the initiative, though portions of the plan were developed by advisers who served during Trump’s first term.
Trump has not publicly called for eliminating or dismantling the National Hurricane Center. But when he was president, he did propose deep cuts to NOAA, including smaller cuts to the National Weather Service.
Project 2025 talks about NOAA in its policy agenda published online, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” It proposes plans for the agency under the chapter “Department of Commerce,” written by Thomas F. Gilman, who was chief financial officer and assistant secretary for administration of the Department of Commerce during the Trump administration.
The project proposes that NOAA be “dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”
However, Heritage Foundation spokesperson Ellen Keenan told us in an email, “Project 2025 does not call for eliminating the NHC or the NOAA. Those claims are false.”
Here’s what Project 2025 writes about the NHC:
Project 2025: The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service data centers provide important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions, and are used by forecasting agencies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important issue in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Project 2025 calls NOAA “a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” It criticized the administration’s efforts to predict and manage major weather events as “the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable.”
The project argues that the “current organization corrupts its useful functions” and suggests that “it should be broken up and downsized.”
Experts Warn of Impact on NHC
Climate experts are questioning the motivations behind Project 2025’s proposal for the NOAA and the impact it would have on the National Hurricane Center.
“There are lots of ways they go after an agency without calling for its immediate elimination, and I think they are hiding behind the fact that they haven’t explicitly called for elimination,” Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told us. “But they’re calling for the kind of destructive actions that would seriously hobble the agency’s ability to do its job,” she said.
NOAA’s ability to predict major storms like Hurricane Helene depends on its various offices working together to provide real-time weather data as well as long-term climate trend data. “These different offices are working together very closely to provide … both short-term as well as long-range information to help inform weather and climate predictions,” Cleetus added. “So the idea that you would dismantle it and it would still continue to be able to provide the service, that’s just not accurate.”
Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, also told us the language in Project 2025 makes it “clear that NHC would be axed, at least in its current form. … It would create all sorts of confusion, uncertainty, disruption, etc. and the idea that the NHC could continue to fulfill its mission is absurd.”
“Without NOAA and the critical data [they] collect and maintain, NHC will be unable to operate in any useful capacity,” Mann said.
Sources
Cleetus, Rachel. Policy director, Climate and Energy program, Union of Concerned Scientists. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 1 Oct 2024.
Contorno, Steve. “Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved.” 11 Jul 2024.
Keenan, Ellen. Senior communications manager, Special Initiatives. Heritage Foundation. Email to FactCheck.org. 30 Sep 2024.
Kiely, Eugene, D’Angelo Gore and Robert Farley. “A Guide to Project 2025.” FactCheck.org. 10 Sep 2024.
Mann Michael. Director, Penn Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media, Department of Earth & Environmental Science/Annenberg School for Communication. University of Pennsylvania. Emails to FactCheck.org. 30 Sep 2024.
Mufson, Steven, Jason Samenow and Brady Dennis. “White House proposes steep budget cuts leading climate science agency.” Washington Post. 3 Mar 2017.
Project 2025. “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” Accessed 30 Sep 2024.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Hurricane Center. Accessed 1 Oct 2024.
Wolfe, Elizabeth, et al. “Relief efforts continue after Hurricane Helene kills at least 180.” CNN. 2 Oct 2024.
