Category: Fact Check

Before former President Donald Trump spoke for 90 minutes in Durham, New Hampshire, his team compared Trump’s record with President Joe Biden’s record by projecting a series of statistics on the wall.

The images shown Dec. 16 had the tagline “Better off with Trump” and covered mortgage payments, mortgage rates and inflation.

Here’s a fact-check of three statements. The Trump campaign did not answer an inquiry for this article.

Some of the statistics cited on projections at Donald Trump’s rally Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H. (Rebecca Catalanello/PolitiFact)

“Under Joe Biden, we’ve had a three-year inflation rate of 20%.”

This needs context.

The standard inflation measure, the consumer price index, has risen by 17.2% since January 2021, when Biden took office. That was an increase over three years, so the annual inflation rate was lower — about 5.9% per year during Biden’s presidency.

Rising wages have helped consumers manage some of this increase in prices.

A standard wage measure, average hourly earnings of all private-sector employees, has risen by 14% during Biden’s presidency, or about 4.8% per year. That means wages are still trailing inflation by about 1.1% a year, but it’s a smaller gap than Trump’s headline number.

The time frame for the calculation also matters.

As inflation has cooled over the past year, wage gains have narrowed the cumulative shortfall from inflation. Since November 2022, inflation has risen by 3.1%, but wages have risen by 4%. If the pattern holds, wage growth during Biden’s presidency may soon surpass the increase in prices. 

Also, Americans are in a better place than they were on the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, which started during Trump’s last year in office. Since February 2020, the last full month before the pandemic hit, inflation has increased by 18.8%, while wages have increased by 19.4%.

“After three years of Bidenomics, the 30-year mortgage rate has hit a 22-year high.”

This is Mostly True. Numerically, Trump is on target. However, Trump’s blaming Biden is less sound, economists said.

The 30-year fixed rate mortgage peaked at 7.79% on Oct. 26, 2023. That was the highest since the identical percentage on Nov. 10, 2000.

Mortgage rates have spiked because the Federal Reserve in March 2022 began raising interest rates to combat inflation. Fed interest rate hikes are considered the most effective economic tools for curbing inflation, because they tend to cool the economy, which eases demand and lowers prices.

Since the Fed hikes began, inflation has receded by about two-thirds. But a side effect has been that other types of interest rates — including mortgages — have also risen. 

Since the mortgage rate peak in October, the average for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage has fallen, hitting 6.67% on Dec. 21. Not counting the peak in recent months, that’s still higher than any rate going back to Aug. 2, 2007, when the rate was 6.68%.

Economists generally agree that some of Biden’s policies likely added to the pressures that pushed up prices.

Biden’s coronavirus relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, put stimulus money into Americans’ hands when supply chains couldn’t produce enough goods to fulfill consumer demand. This worsened the rise of prices, which started because of pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions. 

However, “the drivers of this inflation go back to COVID-19 — issues like supply-chain constraints, workforce shortages, and other factors,” John Deskins, director of the West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research, told PolitiFact West Virginia in October. “That is much larger than any particular Biden policy.”

Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said Biden should “assume some responsibility, but so should members of Congress who voted in favor of stimulus payments, tax cuts, generous unemployment benefits, aid to states and private businesses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic recession.”

The American Rescue Plan got no Republican support in Congress, but earlier pandemic relief bills Trump signed were passed with bipartisan support.

“The average monthly mortgage payment: Under Trump, $1,746; Under Biden: $3,322.”

This needs context.

These are the figures for average monthly payments on a new home, real estate company CBRE reports. That’s a significant out-of-pocket increase for someone buying a new home, but it doesn’t affect homeowners who aren’t looking to move.

The figure is calculated for the purchase of a new home valued at the U.S. median of $430,000, with a 10% down payment.

The majority of American mortgage holders have fixed-rate mortgages that were locked in at much lower rates. In 2022, about 85% of mortgages had fixed rates.

Given the current high rates, adjustable-rate mortgages are gaining popularity. If mortgage rates decrease in 2024, homeowners who hold adjustable-rate mortgages should see their payments drop.

A different calculation shows a lower average monthly mortgage payment. The most recent data from the Mortgage Bankers Association at the time of Trump’s statement showed that in October 2023, the national median mortgage payment for conventional loan applicants was $2,208. 

Wait a minute … that can’t be true.

Through the year, we at PolitiFact say that a lot, as we fact-check false statements from the campaign trail, the Oval Office and social media. Although we say mostly that things are false or misleading, we save “lie” for Lie of the Year — the mendacious statement, or statements, that undermined the truth most significantly in the previous 12 calendar months.

For 2023, the distinction goes to the conspiracy theories of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. 

Here’s a look at PolitiFact’s Lies of the Year going back to its 2009 debut.

2022: Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his statements that obfuscated truths about the war in Ukraine

Putin deployed a highly sophisticated propaganda machine — hundreds of websites, state-run media, social media channels, fake fact-checking and oppressive censorship laws — to wage an unprovoked war and join history’s most brutal authoritarians. Putin disseminated ruthless falsehoods — that Ukraine was committing genocide or under neo-Nazis’ leadership, for example — to co-opt Russian citizens whose family members would be sent to fight a war, kill others and perhaps die themselves. 

2021:Lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and its significance

On Jan. 6, 2021, after then-U.S. President Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Although live news footage and videos from participants provided inescapable evidence of what happened, claims that Jan. 6 was an antifa operation, a false flag, a tourist visit or an uneventful, forgettable day persisted and proliferated throughout the year.

2020: Coronavirus downplay and denial

Lies about COVID-19 infected America in 2020, as conspiracy theories and misinformation, including that new coronavirus was overblown, and maybe a hoax, spread. These lies hampered the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic and the worst of them were not just damaging, but deadly.

2019: Trump’s claim that whistleblower got Ukraine call “almost completely wrong”

A whistleblower raised concerns that Trump’s actions leading up to a July 2019 phone call the then-president had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy amounted to 2020 presidential election interference. Trump, incensed, worked to discredit the whistleblower, but the complaint sparked months of investigation and Trump’s first impeachment in the House. More than 80 times, Trump insisted the whistleblower’s account was incorrect, “total fiction” and “almost completely wrong.” But the record of the call as released by the White House combined with under-oath testimony from career diplomats and other officials validate the whistleblower’s account.

2018: Online smear machine tries to take down Parkland students

After 17 people were viciously gunned down at a Parkland, Florida, high school, students advocated for action against gun violence. Then came the lies, as the students were called “crisis actors” and worse. With polarization high and bipartisanship scarce, the attacks on the Parkland students sparked shared outrage in nearly all political corners.

2017: Russian election interference is a “made-up story”

Trump continually asserted that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election was fake news, a hoax or made up, despite widespread, bipartisan evidence to the contrary. Classified and public reports and U.S. intelligence agencies said Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered actions to interfere with the election.

2016: Fake news

Although conspiracy theories have long been part of America’s political conversation, they surged online in 2016. Fake news found a willing enabler in then-Republican presidential candidate Trump, who repeated and legitimized fabricated reports. We defined fake news as fabricated information that was manipulated to look as if it were credible news reporting for easy online spreading.

2015: The campaign misstatements of Trump

From dubious accounts of his own record and words to “thousands and thousands” of people cheering in New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001, Trump’s inaccurate statements in 2015 exhibited boldness and a disregard for the truth previously unseen in a presidential candidate. By December 2015, PolitiFact had rated 76% of Trump’s claims Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. No other politician had clocked more falsehoods on our Truth-O-Meter, and our only real contenders for Lie of the Year were Trump’s.

2014: Exaggerations about Ebola

In 2014, there were just two Ebola-related deaths in the United States, yet exaggerated claims from politicians and pundits stoked fear of the disease nationwide. Claims included that Ebola was easy to catch, that immigrants illegally in the country may have been carrying the virus and that it was all part of a government or corporate conspiracy.

2013: President Barack Obama: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Obama and other Democrats claimed this when touting the Affordable Care Act. but reducing the complicated health care law to a sound bite proved treacherous. In fall 2013, people started to receive insurance cancellation notices, proving the statement was wrong. Worsening matters, Obama and his team suggested the claim had been misunderstood. To quell the political uproar, Obama issued a rare presidential apology.

2012: Mitt Romney campaign’s ad on Jeeps made in China

When Romney ran for president in 2012, his presidential campaign launched an ad claiming that Jeep was pulling its plants out of Ohio, a critical swing state, and moving production to China. But the Ohio Jeep plants weren’t going anywhere; the moves in China were to expand into the Chinese auto market. Negative press coverage deluged Romney’s campaign; he lost in Ohio, a key battleground state, and then the election.

2011: “Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

Democrats absorbed two years of Republicans’ false charges about the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Then, they turned the tables, slamming House Republicans for voting for a cost-cutting budget resolution from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.. Democrats claimed that voting for this resolution amounted to voting to end Medicare, but Ryan never proposed ending Medicare. He wanted to bring more private insurers into the program. Democrats later altered their talking point to say Republicans wanted to end Medicare “as we know it.”

2010: ‘”A government takeover of health care”

As the Affordable Care Act moved toward enactment, Republicans repeated that the law was a government takeover of health care, though it wasn’t. “Government takeover” connotes a European approach in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, relied largely on the free market and in no way nationalized the country’s health system.

2009: Sarah Palin and “death panels”

Former Alaska Gov. and 2008 vice presidential candidate Palin had PolitiFact’s very first Lie of the Year — that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels.” The idea of government boards that would supposedly determine whether seniors and people with disabilities were worthy of care, was wholly fictional. The law didn’t, and doesn’t, call for death panels. But in 2009, about 30% of the public believed the health care law did include them.

RELATED: PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign of conspiracy theories

RELATED: PolitiFact readers’ pick for 2023 Lie of the Year 

RELATED: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sued PolitiFact’s owner in 2020 over flu vaccine fact-check

It’s time to announce PolitiFact readers’ pick for 2023 Lie of the Year — and it’s a close one.  

PolitiFact awards the Lie of the Year to the most significant falsehood or exaggeration that worked to undermine an accurate narrative. Although editors make the official choice, we also poll readers to see which falsehood they think needs recognition.  

RELATED: PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign of conspiracy theories

The 2023 winner of our Readers’ Choice poll? Former President Donald Trump’s False claim that “They are trying to make it illegal to question the results of a bad election,” after he was charged in a federal indictment for efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump’s claim won our readers’ poll with a slim majority, racking up 22% of the 1,126 votes cast. 

The indictment, released Aug. 1, said Trump “had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election” and that the former president could also challenge the results of the 2020 election through lawful means. The four charges against Trump were related to his actions to subvert election results, not questioning them. 

It’s the third consecutive year that a claim by the former president has won our readers’ poll. Readers picked Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 presidential election in 2021 and his claim about former President Barack Obama and classified documents in 2022. (Our official winners were lies about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and Vladimir Putin’s lies about Ukraine in 2022.)

Second place in the Readers’ Choice Poll went to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ False claim that, “In some liberal states, you actually have post-birth abortions,” with 21% of the votes.

PolitiFact editors chose independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign built on conspiracy theories as the official Lie of the Year for 2023. Kennedy’s Pants on Fire claim that COVID-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people” and to spare Jewish and Chinese people finished third in the readers’ poll, with 18% of the vote.

Here’s our full list of choices and the percentage of votes each one received. 

1. Former President Donald Trump: “They are trying to make it illegal to question the results of a bad election.” False. 22%

2. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis “In some liberal states, you actually have post-birth abortions.” False. 21%

3. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” Pants on Fire! 18%

4. Former President Donald Trump: “Sadly, American taxpayer dollars helped fund (the attacks on Israel by Hamas), which many reports are saying came from the Biden administration.” False. 10%

5. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis: “There’s not been a single book banned in the state of Florida.” False. 9%

6. Former U.S. Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y.: “I never claimed to be Jewish.” Pants on Fire! 6%

7. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley: Having “biological boys … in their locker rooms” is a reason why “a third of our teenage girls seriously contemplated suicide last year.” False. 5%

8. Write your own. 4%

9. President Joe Biden: “Ground zero in New York — I remember standing there the next day.” False. 3%

10. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Atrazine in the water supply is contributing to “sexual dysphoria” in kids. False. 1%

11. Instagram posts: Maui, Hawaii, fires are part of an intentional effort to rebuild the island into a “smart island.” False. 1%

RELATED: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sued PolitiFact’s owner in 2020 over flu vaccine fact-check

RELATED: Looking back at PolitiFact’s Lies of the Year, 2009-2022

The State of Wisconsin’s redistricting process has been fraught for years, facing government deadlocks and interventions from the federal courts.  

The fall 2023 legislative session marked yet another addition to this prickly timeline when Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos announced a redistricting bill he said tracked closely with an idea Democrats had long supported: “An Iowa-style nonpartisan redistricting” model that would allow the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau to write new legislative maps.  

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers quickly dismissed the legislation as “bogus,” prompting Vos to respond in a Sept. 15, 2023 news release: Democrats “rejected our (Iowa model) proposal to enact the very plan they originally endorsed.” 

So is Vos correct that Democrats are now opposing the very idea they advocated for years? 

First, what is the Iowa model and how does it compare to the GOP plan? 

In response to an email from PolitiFact Wisconsin seeking backup, Vos’ spokesperson, Angela Joyce wrote: “There have to be some differences as our Constitution is different than Iowa’s, and in listening to Democrats’ concerns, we made some amendments to the legislation.”

Let’s start with the Iowa system.

Since 1980, Iowa’s legislative districts have been drawn by nonpartisan staff with their Legislative Services Agency. Under Iowa law, legislative maps cannot be redrawn with the intent of favoring a political party, incumbent state legislator or member of Congress. Key provisions include:  

• The state’s Legislative Services Agency holds three public hearings on a proposed set of maps, then submits a report on the maps to the state’s legislature, which may vote to approve or reject them. No amendments are allowed other than corrections to errors. 

• If lawmakers reject the first proposal, the agency has 35 days to propose a new set of maps addressing the reasons the first set were voted down. This process can happen one more time, with the agency offering a third proposal. If the process makes its way to a third proposal, the legislation can be amended — or lawmakers can draft their own set. If the Legislature adopts its own maps, they are subject to review by the state Supreme Court, which in Iowa is composed of appointed, rather than elected, justices. If the legislature fails to adopt maps the Iowa Supreme Court adopts a plan. 

The GOP’s plan is almost identical to what Democrats proposed as early as 2003 in its key element: transferring map-drawing authority away from partisans and to the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau. 

The Republicans’ proposal has some small variations to accommodate for differences between the states’ constitutions, according to a memo prepared by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau.  

Per the memo, here are key ways they are similar: 

• Both Iowa and the GOP’s proposed legislation prohibit the drawing agency from using data on incumbent legislator addresses, voters’ political affiliations, previous election results and demographic information. 

• Both create a redistricting advisory commission to hold public hearings, report on map proposals, and perform other duties. 

• The Iowa legislature’s feedback must, to the extent allowed by Iowa’s statutes and the Constitution, be incorporated into the second or third map proposal. If a map proposal is vetoed by the governor, the governor’s feedback must be incorporated into the second or third map proposal. The GOP’s proposed legislation has similar requirements for incorporating the legislature and governor’s feedback between map proposals. 

Why are Democrats critical of the GOP plan? 

Democrats point to a provision in the Republican legislation for what happens if the attempt to agree on maps gets to a third try. Evers’ most recent proposals required a three-fourths supermajority to approve changes made on the third attempt. Under the Republican plan, a simple majority could approve changes in the third attempt. Evers wants the supermajority to ensure that one party does not ultimately enact a partisan gerrymander at the end of the process

As the Journal Sentinel reported in a Sept. 14 article:  

“Democratic lawmakers who have worked on redistricting bills are put off by the fact that the GOP proposal is most similar to a bill from 2015 — rather than more recent proposals that have been adjusted and still received support from a handful of Republicans….. 

“Under the GOP bill, the Legislative Reference Bureau would submit maps to the Legislature, which could reject the first two proposals. Once a third proposal is introduced, lawmakers could amend it with a simple majority. It would then require the governor’s approval, and would likely end up in the courts without an agreement — unless the Legislature were able to override the governor’s veto. 

“Recent bills, and Evers’ budget proposal, would have required a three-fourths majority to approve the final maps.” 

 

Why do Vos and other Assembly GOP members want this now?  

Passage of the legislation would bypass lawsuits before the state Supreme Court that seek to rewrite the current Republican-favorable maps that were adopted in 2021.  

With the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz earlier this year, liberals hold a majority on the court for the first time in years. Protasiewicz rebuffed calls by Vos and others to recuse herself from the lawsuits  – a move which Vos has warned could lead to her impeachment after she called the current maps “rigged” while campaigning for the court seat. The court heard oral arguments Nov. 21.  

Our ruling 

In a news release, Vos claimed Evers and Democrats “rejected our (Iowa model) proposal to enact the very plan they originally endorsed.”  

There are a lot of key parallels in the Iowa redistricting model and a redistricting bill proposed here in Wisconsin. In fact, Wisconsin’s nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau termed them “virtually identical.”

And Democrats as early as 2003 called for transferring map-drawing authority to the bureau and away from lawmakers. The Republican proposal does that. But the GOP plan also abandons a key provision that Evers introduced in 2019, requiring approval of three-fourths of all members in the Assembly and Senate to pass the maps if a third round of voting becomes necessary. 

Our definition of Mostly True is that the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

That fits here. 

 

In campaign stops, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been railing against the government using eminent domain to build carbon capture pipelines on private land.   

Ramaswamy incorporated the topic into his stump speech in Iowa, an agricultural state and the first to vote in the primary season, and at the fourth Republican presidential debate in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

“There’s an issue coming up in Iowa. It’s core to Iowa farmers,” Ramaswamy said at the Dec. 6 debate. He said he’s met Iowa farmers “who are about to have a carbon capture pipeline built across their land using eminent domain to do it. That’s unconstitutional and it’s wrong.” 

Carbon capture pipelines are intended to curb climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, deep underground so it doesn’t add to rising atmospheric temperatures. 

Ramaswamy was referring to a five-state pipeline system proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions that would carry captured carbon dioxide from about 30 ethanol plants to North Dakota. Under the proposal, about 700 miles of pipe would be laid in Iowa. 

Eminent domain is a legal concept that lets the government seize or gain access to private property for public use as long as the owner is compensated. Traditionally, the government has used eminent domain  to build schools, roads and infrastructure.

However, CO2 pipelines are a relatively new type of infrastructure, and using eminent domain to build them hasn’t been widely tested in U.S. courts. In Iowa, CO2 pipeline projects have sparked legislative fights and legal battles.

Given the legal uncertainties, we won’t offer a Truth-O-Meter rating on Ramaswamy’s remark. 

When PolitiFact asked Ramaswamy’s campaign for evidence that the practice is unconstitutional, campaign staff pointed to his Dec. 2 speech in Des Moines, Iowa, when he said that Iowa law specifies that CO2 pipelines can be granted eminent domain only if they have a public use and are “convenient and necessary.” He cited Iowa statute 479B, which outlines when eminent domain can be used to build hazardous liquid pipelines, including CO2 pipelines.

“Is this a public use? No, it is not. These are private companies being showered, billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money upon them. Those are companies, not the state,” Ramaswamy said in the speech. He added that he thought the Summit Carbon Solutions multistate project was neither convenient nor necessary.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo v. New London that eminent domain could also be used for private developmen. That could cover the proposed carbon capture pipelines.

Constitutional and environmental law experts expressed doubt that using eminent domain to build a carbon dioxide pipeline is clearly unconstitutional. 

“Whether it is constitutional in this case depends on various factors, such as who will own the pipeline, and who will be allowed to use it,” said Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor who has written about eminent domain.

States can decide which projects are considered a “public use” and are therefore eligible for the use of eminent domain. Some states, such as Iowa, include CO2 pipelines in their statutes; other states grant the permits only for oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission lines and water pipelines.

“Certainly, advocates who oppose eminent domain for any type of pipeline would argue any statute granting eminent domain for them is unconstitutional,” said Alexandra Klass, a University of Michigan law professor. “But so far there’s no Iowa court that has held that.”

Klass said Iowa law currently allows for using eminent domain to build CO2 pipelines with appropriate permits, and neither the Iowa Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has held that using eminent domain in these circumstances is unconstitutional. 

Efforts in the Iowa Legislature to eliminate eminent domain for CO2 pipelines have not succeeded, either, though proponents have said they will introduce similar legislation in 2024.

“These are arguments being made in Iowa and in other states,” Klass said. “But the courts haven’t yet decided the issue, so it’s not a foregone conclusion that courts would accept such an argument.”

One proposed project that involves Iowa, from Nebraska-based Navigator CO2 Ventures, was canceled in October, with the company citing “unpredictable” state regulatory processes.

What are carbon capture pipelines?

The pipelines aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as those created during the manufacture of ethanol, fertilizer and other industrial agriculture products, all significant industries in Iowa. The system captures carbon dioxide and compresses it into liquid form for transport. 

By the end of 2022, the United States had about 5,380 miles of CO2 pipelines. That’s far less than U.S. oil and gas pipelines, which run for about 230,000 miles.

Two federal laws, the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act and the 2021 Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act, or SCALE Act, provided tax credits for carbon captured and stored, and low-interest loans and grants to support pipeline construction. President Joe Biden’s administration said in August it would allocate up to $1.2 billion on carbon capture projects in Texas and Louisiana.

All pipelines carry risk, but because CO2 pipelines are a newer technology and operate at a high pressure, some pipeline safety regulators say federal safety standards aren’t strong enough to mitigate the pipelines’ risks.

Some landowners and environmentalists have resisted CO2 pipeline projects, wary of leaks and water contamination. In 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured in Mississippi, sickening dozens of residents.  

Iowans have criticized CO2 pipeline proposals in their state, and public hearings about the projects have often lasted for weeks, the Des Moines Register reported in November. A March 2023 poll found that nearly 80% of Iowans oppose using eminent domain to build carbon pipelines.

Eminent domain attorneys, such as Justin Hodge, a Texas lawyer who represents landowners, said that although pipelines might be needed infrastructure, they often come at landowners’ expense.  

Landowners are terrified and have to deal with “very sophisticated companies with legal teams,” Hodge said. “Most just sign the paperwork, which is a terrible thing.”

The constitutionality of using eminent domain for CO2 pipelines

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment includes the “takings clause,” that says private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation.” But the clause doesn’t prohibit the U.S. government, or a company designated by the government, from acquiring the property. 

Richard Collins, a University of Colorado emeritus professor of constitutional and property law, said it’s unlikely that infrastructure such as pipelines, highways and roadways could be built without eminent domain. “An absolute statement that it would be unconstitutional to build such a pipeline would be wrong — unless the Supreme Court changes the rule.”

A company or government that wants access to property via eminent domain must have “clear legislative authority to do so,” Collins said. In Iowa, that authority lies with the Iowa Utilities Board, which regulates utility infrastructure related to pipelines and electric transmission lines.

The board determines which projects are granted eminent domain. Those decisions can be challenged in court, but experts said Iowa law is relatively clear that once a permit is approved, pipeline companies can legally use eminent domain to move forward.

In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court found that using eminent domain to construct the Dakota Access oil pipeline wasn’t unconstitutional under the Iowa or U.S. constitutions. The court said the Iowa Utilities Board acted within its discretion in determining that the pipeline would promote “public convenience and necessity.” The court authorized the utilities board to interpret that standard’s meaning and decide which projects fit the description.

The court reviewed the board’s decision only to ensure that it wasn’t “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” The utilities board is expected to issue a decision in 2024 on Summit Carbon Solutions’ CO2 pipeline project.

“There may be arguments to treat CO2 pipelines differently (than other pipelines), but it would be an uphill battle,” Klass said.

Un video en Facebook asegura que los residentes en Estados Unidos pueden conseguir en cuestión de minutos una licencia para portar armas ocultas. 

“La administración acaba de aprobar este vacío legal, 100% legal, que permite a todos los residentes estadounidenses en buena posición obtener un permiso de portación oculta (de armas) válido en 2023”, dice la publicación del 17 de noviembre. 

Esta añade que es “la última oportunidad para obtener el permiso de forma electrónica”. 

La publicación fue marcada como parte del esfuerzo de Meta para combatir las noticias falsas y la desinformación en su plataforma. (Lea más sobre nuestra colaboración con Meta, propietaria de Facebook e Instagram).

La supuesta noticia a la que lleva el enlace de la publicación contiene una explicación más detallada. “El Congreso ha aprobado una nueva forma, 100% legal, de obtener su permiso de portación oculta”, dice la noticia. Añade que “todo el proceso se puede completar en línea en menos de 25 minutos desde la comodidad de su propia casa”.

La Segunda Enmienda de la Constitución de Estados Unidos protege el derecho a portar armas de fuego, pero no hay un permiso de portación de arma oculta que funcione para todo el país emitido por el gobierno federal. 

Andrew R. Morral, director de la Colaboración Nacional para la Investigación de la Violencia Armada en RAND Corp., dijo a PolitiFact que los permisos de porte oculto son regulados por cada estado. 

“No ha habido ninguna acción de la ‘administración’ ni del ‘Congreso’ que cambie eso, y no hay ningún sistema federal para obtener un permiso de portación oculta -electrónico o de otro tipo-, con pequeñas excepciones” dijo Morral. Una de las excepciones es para los agentes de la ley o retirados que tienen derecho a portar armas ocultas en todos los estados por la Ley de Seguridad de las Fuerzas de Seguridad de 2004.

En los 50 estados y Washington, D.C. hay leyes propias que regulan y permiten la portación de armas ocultas.

En un fallo de 2022 de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos declaró que era inconstitucional que los estados priven a las personas de un permiso de portar armas ocultas por motivos discrecionales. 

Morral dijo que “en cierto sentido, el gobierno federal ha declarado que todo aquel que reúna los requisitos para obtener un permiso de portar armas ocultas debe recibir uno del estado”. Pero añadió que “los criterios de calificación varían según el estado”. 

En 24 estados y Washington D.C., los gobiernos requieren que sus residentes obtengan un permiso para poder portar armas ocultas legalmente. Por lo general, estos requisitos incluyen un chequeo de antecedentes penales y recibir formación sobre armas de fuego. 

En la página web de Giffords Law Center, una organización para la prevención de la violencia armada, también hay una lista detallada de los estados que requieren permisos para portar armas ocultas y los que no, así como la ley que los regula. 

Una portavoz de la Agencia de Alcohol, Tabaco y Armas de Fuego y Explosivos (ATF, por sus siglas en inglés) dijo a PolitiFact que no emite permisos de portación oculta y que estos pueden ser expedidos por un gobierno estatal o local. 

En julio de 2023, entró en vigor una nueva ley que el gobernador de Florida Ron DeSantis firmó el 3 de abril permitiendo la portación de armas ocultas sin permiso, pero esto solo aplica a su estado.

Nuestro veredicto 

Una publicación en Facebook dice, “La administración acaba de aprobar este vacío legal, 100% legal, que permite a todos los residentes estadounidenses en buena posición obtener un permiso de portación oculta (de armas) válido en 2023”.

El gobierno de Estados Unidos no ha aprobado nada nuevo al respecto. Hay 24 estados que requieren permisos para portar un arma oculta.

Calificamos la publicación 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.

Old video of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is circulating online, and some social media users are making cold-blooded claims.

A Dec. 16 Instagram reel shows video clips and photos of Clinton that suggest she is not human, but a reptile.

At one point, the video shows side-by-side photos of Clinton with her mouth open and a snake with its mouth open. In Clinton’s photo, there appears to be a dark spot on her tongue, which the video claims is a glottis, a small opening that “allows reptilians to breathe while swallowing large prey.”

The Instagram post’s caption reads, “Nothing to see here, just another conspiracy.”

(Screengrab from Instagram)

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

The video begins with a clip of Clinton drinking water on stage. As she raises a glass to her lips, green globs drop into the water. Text on the video reads, “That’s not regular mucus….”

But a reverse-image search found that this video of Clinton had been edited. During a September 2016 campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton started coughing on stage. She drank water multiple times to clear her throat, but no green mucus came out, as the video claimed.

The photo of Clinton that appears to show a dark spot on her tongue is also edited. This photo is of Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, where she was selected as the Democratic presidential nominee. In the original footage of the event, there’s no dark spot.

Other photos of Clinton in the video were similarly edited to give the impression that she is a reptile. In two photos, Clinton’s eyes were made to look like a snake’s eyes.

This is not the first time such a claim has surfaced. In 2009, Richard Heene, who fabricated a story that his son had floated away in a UFO-shaped balloon, also made false statements about Clinton being reptilian.

Claims that high-profile people are reptilian are unfounded and part of a long-running conspiracy theory. PolitiFact has debunked similar claims about President Joe Biden, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Queen Elizabeth II after her death in 2022.

We rate the claim that video is evidence that Clinton is a reptile Pants on Fire!

Un video popular en TikTok muestra a un pasajero de avión aparentemente desorientado y enojado, pero eventualmente se calma cuando una mujer y otros pasajeros le cantan una canción.

“Los pasajeros de un avión cantan para ayudar a calmar a un hombre con Alzheimer que había tenido una recaída”, dice la publicación en TikTok.

La escena es entrañable, si fuera real. La mujer y el hombre en el video son actores. 

El video del hombre supuestamente con alzhéimer lo muestra gritando y a una mujer tratando de abrazarlo y calmarlo. Ella le canta “You are My Sunshine”, le dice a otros pasajeros que él tiene demencia y los invita a cantar también.

PolitiFact encontró un video similar publicado en TikTok en noviembre de 2022 por la cuenta de Henderson Drama Club NM, o club de drama de Henderson. PolitiFact contactó a la cuenta, y hablamos con su propietaria, Manuella Monreal. Ella confirmó a PolitiFact que el video no es real, sino contenido ficcionalizado. “Filmamos contenido dramático guionizado, que no es real, pero que se inspira en situaciones reales”.

Monreal dijo que la intención del video del hombre en el avión era”crear conciencia, y todas las personas en el video son actores”. 

Dos de las personas en ese video también salen en otros videos publicados por Henderson Drama Club NM, como este donde se finge el reparto de una herencia o este en el que fingen regalar premios de Navidad.

Ellos también salen en videos de Jibrizy, un creador de videos que se autodenomina como “cómico”. Según su biografía de Facebook, él hace “videos de temas de conversación que parecen reales”. Estos videos muestran imágenes parecidas a las del video del hombre con alzhéimer y también están grabados en un avión. 

Algunos medios de comunicación han difundido el video como real.

Calificamos la publicación que dice que los pasajeros de un avión cantaron para calmar a un hombre con alzhéimer 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.

Former President Donald Trump said at a recent New Hampshire rally that President Joe Biden is imposing his climate agenda on the U.S. military.

“The worst thing is they want to make our Army tanks all electric,” Trump said Dec. 16 in Durham.

Trump said the vehicles will be used “as we blast our way through enemy territory in an environmentally friendly manner.” He added that Biden puts “environmental maniacs first.” 

He has made similar statements on Truth Social and at Florida and Texas campaign rallies.

The U.S. Army has outlined a strategy to transition to electric vehicles, but it begins with the nontactical fleet — which includes commercially available vehicles such as sedans, station wagons, utility vehicles and trucks — and some goals are decades away. Army spokesperson Ellen Lovett told PolitiFact that the Army is focusing strategy on tactical wheeled vehicles, not tanks. 

“There is no goal to fully electrify every single vehicle in the fleet by 2050,” said Fabian Villalobos, an engineer at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research organization that has an Army research division.

Strategy calls for electrical tactical vehicles by 2050 

The U.S. Army released a 2022 climate strategy that says “fully electric tactical vehicles are still years into the future.” Villalobos said tactical vehicles carry troops or fuel and are different from combat vehicles such as tanks. 

 The strategy includes a timeline to add: 

• An all-electric light-duty nontactical vehicle fleet by 2027.

• An all-electric nontactical vehicle fleet by 2035.

• Hybrid-drive tactical vehicles by 2035.

• Fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050, and the necessary charging infrastructure.

The strategy document doesn’t mention tanks.

Villalobos said he currently knows of no plans to introduce or prototype an electric tank. 

“Tanks are simply too heavy to be fully electrified at this time, but hybrids may be possible,” as demonstrated by prototyping efforts, Villalobos said. 

The strategy aims to maximize efficiency in warfighting logistics, Michael Knickerbocker, a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer, wrote in a 2022 op-ed when he was a federal executive fellow at the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin. 

Military experts told us that electric vehicle advantages include:

• Reducing dependency on foreign adversaries for fuel.

• Fewer front-lines trips and less risk. If less fuel needs to be delivered to the new vehicles on front lines, soldiers make fewer delivery trips and reduce their risk of harm. 

• Stealthier travel without emissions, smoke or noise that alert adversaries.

The Modern War Institute at West Point published a 2022 article that said the Army successfully piloted electric light-duty nontactical vehicles. But generally “the technology is not ready for tactical vehicles because it requires incredibly heavy and bulky infrastructure for power generation and charging.” 

The article said critics of electrifying military vehicles ignore telectrification’s benefits, which “will help make our forces more lethal and save the military money.” 

The idea of introducing electric Army vehicles is not new or unique to the Biden administration. The Army entertained the idea of an electric “cannon-vehicle” as far back as 1995, Rand researchers wrote. In 2012, the Defense Department studied the possibility of adding nontactical electric vehicles. 

When contacted for comment, a Trump campaign spokesperson sent news articles about the Biden administration’s goals for military electric vehicles, but none showed that the administration wants electric Army tanks.

The Trump campaign also cited a 2021 Military.com article that was published before the 2022 Army strategy. In it, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said tactical vehicles would first go to hybrid and nontactical vehicles on bases could transition directly to electric. 

Our ruling

Trump said “they want to make our Army tanks all electric.”

A 2022 Army climate strategy document sets a timeline for transitioning certain types of vehicles to electric over decades, with a goal of having fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050. The strategy document doesn’t mention tanks, and tactical vehicles are different from combat vehicles such as tanks. 

We rate this statement False.

PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this fact-check.

RELATED: Donald Trump’s off-base claims about electric car ‘mandates’ and markets

RELATED: Climate change fact-checks