Category: Fact Check

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

Quick Take

Army cadets rhythmically cheered to the beat of the military band during the annual Army-Navy football game on Dec. 9. The cheer was captured in a viral video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. Some versions of the video circulating on social media sites have been dubbed over to falsely claim that the cadets were chanting “f— Joe Biden.” They weren’t.

---

Full Story

Army beat Navy 17-11 in the annual football game between the two military service academies, held this year at the New England Patriots’ Gillette Stadium.

Video of Army cadets jumping and cheering in rhythm to the marching band has now caught fire on the internet, circulating on social media platforms with a false claim that politicizes the clip.

The original video was posted by Keagan Stiefel, a journalist who works for the New England Sports Network.

Stiefel covered the game for the network, and posts on his X account show that he was by the Army sideline.

Partway through the game, he posted the video clip showing Army cadets cheering with the caption, “I’ve never experienced anything like #ArmyNavy. This is an unbelievable atmosphere.”

Later that day, after the clip had picked up traction online, he reposted a Canadian network’s use of his video, saying, “The Canadians are using my #ArmyNavy video. I’m practically the king of international relations.”

Then a version of Stiefel’s video started circulating with dubbed audio, giving the false impression that the cadets were chanting a vulgar phrase about President Joe Biden that has been a popular saying among some conservatives since 2021. Altered videos on Instagram, for example, include text that says, “Massive ‘Fuck Joe Biden’ chant breaks out at Army/Navy game.”

Stiefel took to X again the day after the game, clarifying that the clip with the politicized chant was “doctored.” Regardless, versions of the falsified video are still circulating online.

---

Sources

Golen, Jimmy. “Army holds on with goal-line stand in final seconds, beats Navy 17-11.” Associated Press. 9 Dec 2023.

Pekale, Zach. “Army-Navy football: Memorable moments, all-time history.” NCAA.com. 9 Dec 2023.

Stiefel, Keagan. “Army-Navy Wrap: Black Knights Edge Midshipmen In ‘America’s Game.’” New England Sports Network. 9 Dec 2023.

Stiefel, Keagan (@KeaganStiefel). “I’ve never experienced anything like #ArmyNavy. This is an unbelievable atmosphere.” X. 9 Dec 2023.

Parker, Ashley and Carissa Wolf. “Biden’s critics hurl increasingly vulgar taunts.” Washington Post. 23 Oct 2021.

Stiefel, Keagan (@KeaganStiefel). “I don’t usually complain about credit, because no one cares but me. I do think it’s interesting that an #ArmyNavy video I posted was doctored, and instead of giving me the credit for posting the original, X sends people to Barstool. It’s not a big deal, just annoying.” X. 10 Dec 2023.

Source

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

When a politician boasts of a “record,” our ears perk up. Is it really a record? In President Joe Biden’s case, when it comes to economic growth and unemployment, it’s simply not.

In several recent campaign speeches, Biden has falsely touted “record economic growth,” pointing to last quarter’s 5.2% growth in real gross domestic product. That’s stronger than economists expected, but quarterly GDP growth has been greater than that many, many times.

“Record economic growth at 5% this last quarter,” Biden said at a campaign reception in Weston, Massachusetts, on Dec. 5. He made similar remarks at two other stops in Boston that day, and he has continued to claim “record” or “historic” economic growth at campaign stops in California and Philadelphia.

A White House official told us Biden’s claim referred to the fact that the third quarter growth was the highest in nearly 10 years and higher than any quarter under former President Donald Trump — not including the wild fluctuations that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We asked why a nearly 10-year stretch would make this a “record,” but we didn’t get a response.

It’s fair enough to set aside some of the impact from the economic fallout of the pandemic. In 2020, during Trump’s tenure, GDP plunged in the second quarter by 28% — when businesses closed and Americans largely stayed at home to stop the spread of COVID-19 — and then rebounded in the third quarter, growing by 34.8%. Those numbers truly are the record decline and growth, but they’re due to unique circumstances. (All of the quarterly figures, which come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, are the real — meaning inflation-adjusted — percentage change from the previous quarter, seasonally adjusted at annual rates.)

Biden also discounts 2021 as part of the pandemic, a year of continued economic recovery, widespread vaccinations and lifting of COVID-19 restrictions across the country. That year, quarterly GDP grew by 5.2%, 6.2%, 3.3% and 7%.

Setting aside 2020 and 2021, the last time GDP growth hit or surpassed 5.2% was in the second quarter of 2014, when it was 5.3%. That’s the White House’s nearly 10-year time frame. But nearly a decade isn’t a record.

The BEA figures go back to 1947. There have been 72 times that quarterly GDP growth was at or above 5.2% since then, not including the 2020-2021 pandemic years.

!function(e,n,i,s){var d=”InfogramEmbeds”;var o=e.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];if(window[d]&&window[d].initialized)window[d].process&&window[d].process();else if(!e.getElementById(i)){var r=e.createElement(n);r.async=1,r.id=i,r.src=s,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,”script”,”infogram-async”,”

Unemployment — Also Not a ‘Record’

In Massachusetts, Biden also boasted of “record low unemployment — 21 straight months of unemployment below 4%.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate was 3.7% in November, the 22nd month in a row that the rate was below 4%.

That is a long stretch of low unemployment, but it’s not a “record.” The rate was below 4% for 27 straight months from late 1967 to early 1970, and for 35 straight months from 1951 to 1953.

!function(e,n,i,s){var d=”InfogramEmbeds”;var o=e.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];if(window[d]&&window[d].initialized)window[d].process&&window[d].process();else if(!e.getElementById(i)){var r=e.createElement(n);r.async=1,r.id=i,r.src=s,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,”script”,”infogram-async”,”

The unemployment claim is a shortened version of a talking point we’ve written about before. In the summer, the president repeatedly said that “unemployment has been below 4% for the longest stretch in over 50 years.”

That’s true. At the time, the streak stood at 18 months — and it has continued.

As we wrote then, a slight change in Biden’s metric — setting the threshold at or below 4% — would enable his predecessor, Trump, to claim a streak of 24 straight months. The Biden administration has now tied that measure: Unemployment has been at or below 4% since December 2021.

At a Dec. 9 campaign event in Pacific Palisades, California, Biden also said: “historic low unemployment for Black and Latinos, historic — in all of American history, it’s never been this low.” That’s not quite right.

The unemployment rate for Black Americans did hit a historic low — a record — of 4.7% in April. It has now crept up to 5.8%, as of November.

Similarly, the Hispanic unemployment rate was 3.9% in September 2022 — again, a record — but the latest figure is 4.6%.

As we said when Trump used to boast of record-low unemployment for Black and Hispanic Americans, before the pandemic, the rates — for all Americans — generally had been trending down for several years before Trump took office. In 2020, they shot up due to the pandemic, and the rates have been trending back down since then, with some fluctuations.

Under both Biden and Trump, the gap between white and Black, and white and Hispanic, unemployment has remained.

!function(e,n,i,s){var d=”InfogramEmbeds”;var o=e.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];if(window[d]&&window[d].initialized)window[d].process&&window[d].process();else if(!e.getElementById(i)){var r=e.createElement(n);r.async=1,r.id=i,r.src=s,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,”script”,”infogram-async”,”

Source

SciCheck Digest

People who receive some vaccines that use live weakened viruses to stimulate a strong and lasting immune response sometimes release small amounts of those viruses outside of their bodies. That’s expected, and it doesn’t mean that they put vulnerable populations in “harm’s way,” as a post misleadingly suggests.

---

Full Story

Getting vaccinated is the safest way to get protection against certain diseases that can be dangerous and sometimes deadly. Multiple vaccines are recommended and especially important in children, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems and their close contacts, given that these groups are more susceptible to, and could suffer from complications from, preventable diseases. 

Different types of vaccines work in different ways, but they all prompt the body to mount an immune response against a specific pathogen, which provides protection against a particular disease without a person having to get sick. Live attenuated vaccines contain a small amount of live virus that has been weakened. The live attenuated vaccines routinely recommended in the U.S. are the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR vaccine; the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine; the rotavirus vaccine; and the intranasal influenza vaccine. 

With live attenuated vaccines, since the virus is weakened but not inactivated or “killed,” the virus can still replicate in the body, although much less so than a natural virus. This creates very strong and long-lasting immune protection, similar to the immunity stimulated by natural infection. It also means the weakened virus could be released or discharged outside the body, and, if there is a large amount of it, potentially transmitted to others. But that doesn’t mean that the vaccines are harmful or shouldn’t be used.

“When a pathogen replicates in the body, it can be shed in respiratory secretions or in stool. We call that shedding,” Benjamin Lopman, professor of epidemiology and environmental health at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, told us in an email. “In some instances, it is possible for shed LAVs to be transmitted to other persons. However, since LAVs are safe, this generally does not present a problem,” he said, referring to live attenuated vaccines.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, live attenuated vaccines “usually do not cause disease such as that caused by the wild form of the organism. When a live, attenuated vaccine does cause disease, it is usually much milder than the natural disease and is considered an adverse reaction to the vaccine.”

But a post published on Instagram gives the misleading impression that live attenuated vaccines are not safe and put vulnerable groups “in harm’s way.”

“Aren’t  supposed to protect the vulnerable people from disease?  can actually spread disease. Maybe’ you’ve heard of it, it’s known as shedding,” reads the caption of the Instagram post, which includes six slides about shedding and vaccines. 

The post continues by quoting a line from an article on live attenuated vaccines published in 2010 in Nature Biotechnology.

“Because LAVs (live attenuated viruses) are shed from , they sometimes present a risk to un- individuals with impaired immunity,” reads the post, which incorrectly says the article was published by the National Institutes of Health.

The post continues: “So young children, pregnant women, immune compromised, the elderly…..that group of individuals we are told as those who choose not the , that we are putting in harm’s way.” 

Raul Andino-Pavlovsky, professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the authors of the article cited in the Instagram post, told us in an email that not all live attenuated vaccines can be transmitted. “Most LAVs are not transmissible,” he wrote.

Moreover, he said, “it is crucial to emphasize that LAV viruses are attenuated in their pathogenicity. This means they replicate less effectively and do not infect tissues and organs where they cause disease.”

In other words, since the weakened virus reproduces less effectively than the naturally occurring virus would, less virus is shed, which makes it harder for someone else to get infected. And again, since the virus has been debilitated, it’s not able to produce symptoms in most people. 

For this reason, in most cases, even people living with someone who is immunocompromised can — and in fact should — be vaccinated, including with live attenuated vaccines. 

“Children in the homes of immune-compromised people can safely receive all routinely recommended vaccines. Adults in the home or in close contact with immune-compromised individuals should also be up to date on all routinely recommended vaccines, so they do not inadvertently expose the vulnerable person to vaccine-preventable diseases,” as the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education Center explains.

“Being a household contact of a pregnant woman or immunosuppressed person is usually not a contraindication to vaccination,” the CDC’s Pink Book, which is the agency’s guide to vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases, says. “In fact, it is critical that healthy household contacts of pregnant women and immunosuppressed persons be vaccinated. Vaccination of healthy contacts reduces the chance that pregnant women and immunosuppressed persons will be exposed to vaccine-preventable diseases.”

Of the vaccines given in the U.S., the only vaccine that should not be given to people who are in close contact with immunocompromised people is the smallpox vaccine, which is only given in select circumstances. There are also some additional precautions that can be taken in a few other instances, as we’ll explain below. But the general notion that people should avoid vaccination because of shedding concerns is incorrect.

Some Vaccine Shedding Is Expected

The fact that some live attenuated vaccines shed is generally not cause for alarm.

Shedding is common after receiving a live attenuated influenza vaccine, according to the CDC, especially among younger people. Shedding is not the same as transmission, since transmission requires a larger amount of virus. Transmission of shed influenza vaccine viruses from vaccinated to unvaccinated people has been documented, according to the agency, “but has not been reported to be associated with serious illness,” the CDC explains. Close contacts of immunocompromised people can receive the live attenuated influenza vaccine, unless the person with immunocompetence is in a protective environment, according to the agency.

In a 2006 clinical study among 197 children, ages 9 months to 3 years, who received a vaccine or placebo, 80% of the vaccine recipients shed at least one vaccine strain, and one transmission was documented. The probability of transmission was calculated at 0.58%. “No clinically significant illness occurred among children who received vaccine or placebo or in the child to whom the vaccine virus was transmitted,” according to the study.

With the chickenpox, or varicella, vaccine, the manufacturer says transmission of the vaccine virus “may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts.” It adds that according to findings from a placebo-controlled trial with 416 placebo recipients who were household contacts of 445 vaccine recipients, “if vaccine virus transmission occurred, it did so at a very low rate and possibly without recognizable clinical disease in contacts.” A person who gets vaccinated against chickenpox and lives with someone who is immunocompromised does not need to take any extra precautions, the CDC says, unless they develop a rash. If that happens, the vaccinated person should stay away from the vulnerable person until the rash resolves.

Similarly, shedding and transmission have been detected with the rotavirus vaccine. According to the manufacturer, in the safety and efficacy trial, shedding in the stool was detected in 32 of 360 vaccine recipients after dose one, but in none of 249 vaccine recipients after dose two. Transmission was not evaluated in phase 3 studies, but has been observed.

For this reason, the CDC recommends that everyone in a household with an immunocompromised person take particular care to wash their hands after changing the diaper of an infant who received rotavirus vaccine. But again, this is not a good reason to not vaccinate a child in the first place.

As a 2008 review on viral shedding from rotavirus vaccines put it, “[s]ince the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wildtype rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.”

The main live vaccine for which viral shedding can be a real problem is the oral polio vaccine. The vaccine hasn’t been used in the U.S. since 2000, but other countries use it because it can prevent onward transmission of polio and is better for eradication efforts. Most of the time, viral shedding of the weakened vaccine virus is not a concern — and it can even be beneficial because it provides contact immunity or indirect vaccination, as experts told us for a previous story.

But sometimes the vaccine virus can change back into a more dangerous virus that can cause paralysis. This happens when the virus accumulates mutations after circulating for a long time in populations with low rates of vaccination or in immunocompromised people. This strain of vaccine-derived poliovirus can shed and infect others, putting unvaccinated people at risk of getting polio.

This only stresses the importance of vaccination among vulnerable groups. Polio was eliminated in the U.S. in 1979 thanks to widespread vaccination. And as part of the efforts to eradicate polio globally, scientists developed a new version of the oral polio vaccine, first rolled out in 2021, that is less likely to revert and cause vaccine-derived poliovirus outbreaks.

Live Attenuated Vaccine Contraindications

Although live attenuated vaccines are generally safe, they are contraindicated for certain groups and in certain instances. 

They are not recommended for pregnant people due to a “theoretical risk of virus transmission to the fetus,” according to the CDC.

The CDC also says that live vaccines usually shouldn’t be given to severely immunocompromised people, such as people with leukemia, or people taking drugs that can cause severe immunosuppression, such as someone undergoing treatment for cancer. This is because these individuals may be unable to limit the replication of the weakened vaccine virus, which can lead to severe illness or death. Still, some immunocompromised people may receive some live attenuated vaccines safely, so patients should consult their doctors, since recommendations vary case by case. 

Most live attenuated vaccines “can safely be given to vulnerable people with some exceptions,” Lopman, from Emory University, told us.  

“Live attenuated vaccines have been used for as long as vaccines have existed. They are widely used globally and are generally safe,” Lopman said. “Severe reactions are extremely rare.”

---

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

Sources

“Vaccines Types.” HHS. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.” CDC. 18 Aug 2021.

“Vaccine (Shot) for Measles.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023. 

“Vaccine (Shot) for Mumps.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Vaccine (Shot) for Rubella.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Vaccine (Shot) for Chickenpox.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Vaccine (Drops) for Rotavirus.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine [LAIV] (The Nasal Spray Flu Vaccine).” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Making Vaccines: How Are Vaccines Made?”. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Vaccine Education Center. Accessed 11 Dec 2023. 

“Altered Immunocompetence.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023. 

“A Look at Each Vaccine: Smallpox Vaccine.” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Vaccine Education Center. Accessed 11 Dec 2023. 

McDonald, Jessica. “Poliovirus Found in New York City Wastewater, Not Tap Water.” FactCheck.org. 18 Aug 2022.

Lopman, Benjamin. Professor of epidemiology and environmental health at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 5 Dec 2023. 

Andino-Pavlovsky, Raul. Professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of California, San Francisco. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 5 Dec 2023. 

“Infectious Diseases And Immune-Compromised People.” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Vaccine Education Center. Spring 2020. 

“Safety of Influenza Vaccines.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Varivax.” FDA. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“RotaTeq.” FDA. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

“Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus.” CDC. Accessed 11 Dec 2023.

Jaramillo, Catalina. “No Scientific Basis for Vaccine ‘Shedding’ Claims.” FactCheck.org. 11 May 2021. 

Source

Quick Take

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III reportedly told House members that failure to provide more aid for Ukraine could lead to Russia’s invasion of a NATO ally and a direct U.S. military response in accordance with the NATO treaty. A viral post by Tucker Carlson misleadingly omits Austin’s explanation of why U.S. troops might be required.

---

Full Story

For months, the Biden administration has been telling Congress that Ukraine needs more support in its war with Russia. The administration’s request for more funding for Ukraine has gotten increasingly urgent in recent weeks.

In an Oct. 20 address to the nation, President Joe Biden warned that the failure to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine will embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade countries that are members of NATO – a military alliance formed in 1949 to keep the peace in Europe after World War II.

Biden has said he would not send troops to fight in Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. But Biden said in his address, “if Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every inch of NATO which the treaty requires and calls for.”

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III brought that message to a closed briefing of House members on Dec. 5. He said that failure to approve more aid for Ukraine could “very likely” lead to the need for U.S. troops to defend NATO allies in Europe against Russia, the Messenger reported.

But a Dec. 7 post by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on X, the platform formerly called Twitter, which was shared on Instagram on Dec. 8, misleadingly omits Austin’s explanation of why and where American troops would be needed if Ukraine loses the war with Russia.

Carlson’s post, which shows a photo of Austin shaking hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said: “The Biden administration is openly threatening Americans over Ukraine. In a classified briefing in the House yesterday, defense secretary Lloyd Austin informed members that if they don’t appropriate more money for Zelensky, ‘we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia.’ Pay the oligarchs or we’ll kill your kids.”

Austin was referring to the U.S. commitment to its NATO allies in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in 1949. Carlson made no reference to Article 5 in his tweet, which received more than 100,000 likes, and he did not explain what could happen if Russia invades a NATO country.   

North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

A day after Austin’s meeting with congressional members, Biden referenced Article 5 in remarks urging Congress to provide more funding for Ukraine.

“If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there. It’s important to see the long run here. He’s going to keep going. He’s made that pretty clear,” Biden said on Dec. 6. “If Putin … keeps going and then he attacks a NATO ally — well, we’ve committed as a NATO member that we’d defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops — American troops fighting Russian troops if he moves into other parts of NATO.”

After Austin’s briefing, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul told the Messenger, “If [Vladimir] Putin takes over Ukraine, he’ll get Moldova, Georgia, then maybe the Baltics.” The Baltic nations — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — are former republics of the Soviet Union and now members of NATO.

“And then the idea that we’ll have to put troops on the ground in Secretary Austin’s word was very likely,” said McCaul, a Texas Republican who has supported aid for Ukraine.

A spokesperson for McCaul told us in an email that Carlson’s post “is very much lacking context.” The spokesperson directed us to another McCaul staffer for more information, but that person didn’t provide further comment.

Some other Republican leaders have also warned of Russia’s possible aggression toward NATO countries if it succeeds in Ukraine.

In a Dec. 10 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah said, “My own view is that it’s very much in America’s interest to see Ukraine successful and to provide the weapons that Ukraine needs to defend itself. Anything other than that would be a huge dereliction of our responsibility, I believe, to the world of democracy but also to our own national interest. Because if Putin thinks he can invade his neighbor with impunity and that we’re just going to step back, that we’re going to say, ‘Oh, we’re tired; we’re not going to keep on helping,’ then, guess what? He’s not going to stop. And he’s going to go into a NATO nation that’s going to draw NATO and our troops into war with Russia.”

After Carlson tweeted about Austin’s meeting with Congress, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin, citing sources who attended the briefing, tweeted that Carlson’s “characterization” of Austin’s statements was wrong.

“This characterization of Austin’s remarks is 100 percent not true, acc to two sources who were in the briefings. Austin warned that it is not hyperbole to say Putin won’t stop at Ukraine. If he enters NATO territory US troops could be called to fight; cheaper to fund Ukraine now,” Griffin reported.

We wrote about a similar claim on social media when Zelenskyy warned that a Russian invasion of one of the Baltic states could spark a response from the U.S. military.

But we noted that Katherine Yon Ebright, of the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote in a 2022 report that the language of Article 5 is “relatively flexible.” It allows NATO members to determine how to respond to an attack on an ally — which could mean sending equipment, imposing sanctions, or engaging in direct military action, she wrote.

---

Sources

Baldor, Lolita C., and Tara Copp. “The Pentagon warns Congress it is running low on money to replace weapons sent to Ukraine.” Associated Press. 2 Oct 2023.

Jennifer Griffin @JenGriffinFNC. “This characterization of Austin’s remarks is 100 percent not true, acc to two sources who were in the briefings. Austin warned that it is not hyperbole to say Putin won’t stop at Ukraine. If he enters NATO territory US troops could be called to fight; cheaper to fund Ukraine now.” X. 7 Dec 2023.

Mascaro, Lisa and Colleen Long. “Biden will ask Congress for $13B to support Ukraine, $12B for disaster fund, an AP source says.” Associated Press. 10 Aug 2023.

McPherson, Lindsey. “Austin Warns Congress Failing to Pass Ukraine Aid ‘Very Likely’ Leads to US Troops on the Ground in Europe.” 5 Dec 2023.

Meet the Press. Interview with Sen. Mitt Romney. NBC. 10 Dec 2023.

NATO. NATO member countries. Nato.int. 8 Jun 2023.

NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty. Nato.int. 4 Apr 1949. Updated 19 Oct 2023.

Solender, Andrew. “Top House Republicans try to stem the GOP’s anti-Ukraine tide.” Axios. 5 Dec 2023.

Spencer, Saranac Hall. “Social Media Posts Misrepresent Zelenskyy’s Remarks on U.S. Military Involvement.” FactCheck.org. 2 Mar 2023.

Spokesperson for House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul. Email to FactCheck.org. 8 Dec 2023.

U.S. Department of State. Fact sheet: “The Ironclad U.S. Commitment to NATO.” 29 Nov 2021.

U.S. Department of State. Office of the Historian. “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations.” Accessed 12 Dec 2023.

White House. “Remarks by President Biden on the Request to Congress for Additional Funding to Support Ukraine.” 28 Apr 2022.

White House. “Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine.” 20 Oct 2023.

White House. “Remarks by President Biden Urging Congress to Pass His National Security Supplemental Request, Including Funding to Support Ukraine.” 6 Dec 2023.

Yon Ebright, Katherine. Brennan Center for Justice. “NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained.” Updated 15 Nov 2022.

Source