Category: Fact Check

  • Ad Misleads on Harris’ Fracking Position, Uses Debatable Figure for Fracking-Reliant Jobs in PA

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Vice President Kamala Harris has said that she will not attempt to ban fracking if elected president, a reversal of a position that she took during her 2020 presidential campaign. But a TV ad from Republican Senate candidate Dave McCormick claims that Harris “would make” hundreds of thousands of fracking-dependent jobs in Pennsylvania “disappear.”

    Even if Harris wanted to ban fracking, which she now says she doesn’t, she alone would only be able to do so on federal land, where presidents have the authority to restrict drilling for oil and natural gas, experts told us. A ban on state or private land, where the vast majority of oil and natural gas production in the country takes place, would require an act of Congress.

    It’s also questionable that more than 300,000 jobs in Pennsylvania “depend on fracking,” as the ad claims. That estimate of indirect and induced jobs attached to the state’s wider oil and natural gas industry comes from a 2023 report commissioned by an industry trade association. Others say the estimate is inflated.

    The McCormick ad, released in tandem with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, began airing across the Keystone State on Sept. 17, according to the ad tracking service AdImpact. The ad starts with a nearly 5-year-old video of Harris talking about fracking, known formally as hydraulic fracturing.

    “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” Harris says in the clip, which was her response in a 2019 climate town hall to a question about a potential fracking prohibition.

    The ad’s narrator then goes on to say: “Harris would make these Pennsylvania jobs disappear. But that’s not all. Three hundred thousand Pennsylvania jobs that depend on fracking would also disappear.” After that, McCormick appears in the ad and says that means “truck drivers, hard-working people like mechanics, even bartenders,” would be out of work.

    McCormick then asks, “And what’s Bob Casey say about Kamala?” That’s followed by a clip of Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania, McCormick’s Democratic opponent, saying in a July MSNBC interview that Harris is “prepared right now to do this job.” At the end of the ad, the Republican businessman calls Casey and Harris “too weak.”

    To be clear, Casey is against banning fracking, and Harris now says she is, too.

    “As president, I will not ban fracking,” Harris responded when asked in an Aug. 29 CNN interview if she still wanted to ban the procedure that uses water, sand or chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations. In that interview, Harris said her position changed when she realized that it is possible to achieve certain climate goals “without banning fracking” — a drilling process that can negatively impact the environment, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    Harris reiterated her promise not to ban fracking at the Sept. 10 presidential debate, in which her Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, claimed — as he often has — that Harris “will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania” if she becomes president.

    “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil,” Harris said, after noting that she voted for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Among other things, that law requires the Department of Interior to make at least some federal land and offshore waters available for leasing by oil and gas companies to do drilling.

    Furthermore, no president can unilaterally ban all fracking, experts told us.

    “The President would only be able to truly ban fracking on federal lands, where it can fully control land and resource use,” Jennifer Baka, an associate professor of geography at Penn State University, said in an email to us. “On state and private lands, where most fracking occurs, fracking is regulated by the states through their authority to govern land and resource use.”

    Presidents could try to further limit fracking through executive actions or regulations, but such measures would have to survive expected legal challenges and also could be overturned by a future president. “It would require an act of Congress to ban it nationwide,” said Timothy W. Kelsey, a professor of agricultural economics at Penn State, in an email to us.

    In recent years, Congress has failed to pass bills eliminating fracking nationwide.

    Fracking Jobs in Pennsylvania

    Fracking has helped produce record amounts of crude oil and natural gas in the U.S., which is currently the world leader in production of both energy sources. The technology also has contributed to Pennsylvania becoming the second-largest producer of natural gas behind Texas.

    The ad’s narrator says that a ban would mean Pennsylvania fracking jobs would no longer exist, and “300,000 Pennsylvania jobs that depend on fracking also would disappear.” But the number of jobs in Pennsylvania that rely on fracking is debatable.

    Text on screen in the ad says, “Harris Fracking Ban 330,640 lost jobs,” although no source is cited. Supporting documentation that an NRSC spokesperson provided to FactCheck.org shows the figure comes from a 2023 report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and natural gas trade association.

    The report, produced by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that there were 423,700 jobs tied to Pennsylvania’s oil and natural gas industry in 2021, including 93,060 direct jobs, 143,530 indirect jobs at businesses within the industry’s supply chain and 187,110 induced jobs from the spending of wages made by people employed directly or indirectly in the industry. (The indirect and induced jobs figures add up to 330,640.)

    So, the ad’s figure for fracking-dependent jobs at risk if a total ban were implemented is an estimate of the economic impact for the broader oil and gas industry. It’s also an overestimate, according to Sean O’Leary, a senior researcher for the Ohio River Valley Institute, a think tank that focuses on clean energy policy and economics.

    In an August 2023 blog post, he argued that the estimate of indirect and induced jobs in the API report was derived using “exaggerated multipliers” and “double counting.” In an email to us, O’Leary — using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the partially labor union-funded Economic Policy Institute — estimated that there were 55,509 fracking-related jobs in Pennsylvania in 2023, of which 18,636 were direct jobs and the rest were indirect and induced jobs.

    His estimate was based on employment in five BLS categories that could “reasonably be associated with the fracking industry,” he said, including oil and gas extraction, drilling for oil and gas, support services for oil and gas, oil and gas pipeline construction, and pipeline transportation. Meanwhile, the API’s report mostly relied on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and included additional employment sectors.

    O’Leary said many jobs that API counted, such as clerks at gas stations with and without convenience stores, are “not specifically associated with fracking.”

    Kelsey also said in an email to us that the API figure “seems pretty high” compared with jobs estimates from studies done years ago when “natural gas development was much more robust in PA than it has been for the past few years.”

    As for state government data, the 2022 Pennsylvania Energy Employment Report, produced for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Energy Programs Office by the consulting firm BW Research Partnership, said that in 2021 there were a combined 40,684 petroleum and natural gas jobs in the state, including jobs across sectors for fuel extraction and mining, power line transmission and wholesale trade and distribution, fuel storage, and electricity generation. The report did not mention fracking, explicitly.

    However, Kelsey noted that state employment figures do not account for indirect and induced jobs, and thus are “almost always less than the total economic impact of a sector.”

    So, the number of jobs in Pennsylvania that “depend on fracking” may be lower than the ad claims, but it also may be higher than state data suggest.

    Correction, Sept. 24: We originally reported the wrong figure from O’Leary for fracking-related jobs. We have corrected the error.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source

  • Posts Misrepresent Vance’s Comments About His Pet Dog

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Sen. JD Vance introduced his dog during a recent interview with Tucker Carlson in an effort to debunk rumors that the family pet was rented to enhance the Republican vice presidential nominee’s image. But social media posts are highlighting a brief clip of the interview to falsely claim Vance “admits he has a ‘rent-a-dog.’”


    Full Story

    Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has made comments that have drawn him into a vortex of controversies involving pets.

    In a 2021 interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson when he was running for a Senate seat in Ohio, Vance called prominent Democrats, including then-Vice President Kamala Harris, “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made.” Those comments were revived and went viral in July.

    More recently, Vance come under fire for spreading the unfounded claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their neighbors’ pets, as we wrote. In a post on X on Sept. 9, Vance said, “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country. Where is our border czar?” 

    Former President Donald Trump repeated the falsehood during the presidential debate held on Sept. 10.

    Now, Vance has become the target of misinformation about his own pet.

    Vance appeared in a Sept. 18 video on Rumble, again with Tucker Carlson, and joked with the host about online rumors that his campaign had rented a German Shepherd in order to enhance Vance’s image.

    Social media users then shared a snippet of the interview to amplify the rumors. A Threads post on Sept. 21 shows a clip from the video in which Vance is heard saying, “a rent-a-dog that was given to me by the campaign to make me seem like I’m a dog fan.” Carlson replies: “How weird.” The caption on the Threads post reads: “The campaign got JD a dog to make him appear more human. We must rescue that dog.”

    Another post on Threads claims, “JD Vance admits he has a ‘rent-a-dog’ and the dog is to ‘ …make me seem like I’m a dog fan.’ Where is the ASPCA when you need them to step in and remove the poor dog?”

    A longer clip from the interview, which shares the complete quote from Vance, was posted by the Tucker Carlson Network on Instagram with the caption, “JD Vance introduces us to his supposed ‘rent-a-dog’ as the Left likes to claim.”

    On the Instagram post, Vance introduces his dog, Atlas, and laughingly says, “I found out on the internet a few weeks ago that he’s actually a rent-a-dog that was given to me by the campaign to make me seem like I’m a dog fan.”

    Vance then tells Carlson that his family “got him when he was an eight-week-old puppy.” Vance adds, “It’s like shocking to me that anybody would think that he’s not our puppy.”

    Vance also mentions that the dog accompanies him on the campaign trail. “He’s on the road with us,” he tells Carlson.


    Sources

    Fox News Network. “Tucker Carlson sits down with JD Vance (September 18, 2024).” Rumble. 18 Sep 2024.

    Kiely, Eugene. “Vance’s Misleading Claim About Immigrants and Murders in Springfield, Ohio.” FactCheck.org. 20 Sep 2024.

    Kiely, Eugene, et al. “FactChecking the Harris-Trump Debate.” FactCheck.org. 11 Sep 2024.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Vance Wrong On Child Tax Credit, Harris’ Remarks About Climate Change and Having Kids.” Factcheck.org. 2 Aug 2024.

    Penley, Taylor. “JD Vance says ‘anti-family’ Dems took ‘childless cat lady’ remark out of context: ‘Lie of the left.’” Fox News. 29 Jul 2024.

    Tucker Carlson Network. “JD Vance introduces us to his supposed “rent-a-dog” as the Left likes to claim.” Instagram. 20 Sep 2024.

    Tucker Carlson Tonight. Interview with JD Vance. Fox News. 29 Jul 2021.



    Source

  • NRA Posts Misrepresent Harris’ Position on Gun Ownership

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Vice President Kamala Harris supports a ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons, but no longer supports a mandatory buyback program for such guns. The National Rifle Association misleadingly claims that Harris will “ban law-abiding Americans from owning” guns and “seize your legally owned guns.”  Her proposal would not ban all guns or seize any guns.


    Full Story

    During the 2020 presidential race, then-Sen. Kamala Harris came out in support of a mandatory buyback program for so-called assault weapons. At a gun safety forum in Las Vegas, Harris said, “we have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory buyback program.”

    Harris also said that such weapons “should not be on the streets of a civil society” in a November 2019 NBC News interview.

    As the current Democratic nominee for president, Harris continues to support a ban on purchasing certain semiautomatic weapons. But her campaign told us she is no longer advocating that Americans be required to give up weapons that they had legally purchased.

    Harris was questioned about her policy changes on guns and other issues during the Sept. 10 debate with former President Donald Trump. She said that her “values have not changed,” but did not comment more specifically on her position. Later in the debate, Harris said, “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away.”

    But a Sept. 17 Instagram post by the National Rifle Association falsely claims, “All Kamala Harris knows about guns is that she wants to ban them.” In the video, Harris can be heard calling for universal background checks and closing the so-called gun-show loophole that allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms without performing background checks. 

    The post claims that Harris wants to “ban law-abiding Americans from owning [guns].” Another Instagram post by the NRA on Sept. 18 claims, “Kamala Harris will seize your legally owned guns.”

    But the claims misrepresent the vice president’s position on firearms. While Harris supports a ban on so-called assault weapons, her plan would not apply to such weapons purchased before the proposed ban would take effect. The U.S. had a similar ban in place for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004, on the sale of certain semiautomatic weapons, as we have written before.

    When asked for comment about the claim that Harris wants to “ban law-abiding Americans from owning” guns, an NRA spokesperson directed us to a recent post on X by Harris’ official vice presidential account that reads, “Congress must renew the assault weapons ban.”

    At a Sept. 19 campaign event with former talk show host Oprah Winfrey, Harris told families of school shooting victims that “for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice to suggest you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the Second Amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws, and these are just common sense.”

    The policy section of Harris’ campaign website also reflects this position, stating that, “She’ll ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

    On the campaign trail in 2019, Harris said that she owned a gun for “personal safety.” During the presidential debate, she said, “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.” And she told Winfrey, “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot.”


    Sources

    CBS Chicago. “Presidential Debate Between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.” YouTube. 10 Sep 2024.

    Chu, Vivian. “Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues.” Congressional Research Service. 14 Feb 2013.

    Epstein, Reid. “Why the Kamala Harris of Four Years Ago Could Haunt Her in 2024.” New York Times. 29 Jul 2024.

    Farley, Robert. “FactChecking Biden’s Claim that Assault Weapons Ban Worked.” FactCheck.org. 26 Mar 2021.

    Folk, Zachary. “Biden Closes ’Gun Show Loophole’-Here’s What to Know and When Rule Comes into Effect.” Forbes. 8 May 2024.

    Harris, Kamala. (@VP). “Congress must renew the assault weapons ban.” X. 14 Sep 2024.

    Kamala Harris. “Unite for America Rally with Vice President Kamala Harris and Oprah Winfrey.” YouTube. 19 Sep 2024.

    KamalaHarris.com. “Make Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence and Crime.” Accessed 23 Sep 2024.

    Lah, Kyung. “Kamala Harris talks about owning a gun: ‘I was a career prosecutor’.” CNN.com. 11 Apr 2019.

    MSNBC. “Watch Live: Gun Safety Forum 2020 In Las Vegas | MSNBC.” YouTube. 2 Oct 2019.

    NBC Nightly News. “Sen. Kamala Harris speaks to @HarrySmith about gun control in our series #WhatMatters where we take voters’ questions to the candidates.” 19 Nov 2019.

    Robertson, Lori and D’Angelo Gore. “Trump Distorts the Facts in Attacks on Harris.” FactCheck.org. 1 Aug 2024.

    White House. “Remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris at a Political Event Houston, TX.” 31 Jul 2024.



    Source

  • Trump’s Latest Bogus Claim About Mail-In Vote Fraud in Pennsylvania

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Former President Donald Trump cited the dubious results of a poll commissioned by a conservative group as the foundation for his latest claim of rampant voter fraud among mail-in voters.

    “An interview by Tucker Carlson of an election expert indicates that 20% of the Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania are fraudulent. Here we go again!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Sept. 8.

    Here we go again, indeed. Trump has repeatedly made false claims about voter fraud, continuing to say the 2020 election was “rigged,” despite the fact that his own aides, including his attorney general, told him his claims were baseless.

    We did not get a response from the Trump campaign when we asked for backup, but it appears he was referring to an interview Carlson, a former Fox News host, did in April with Justin Haskins of the conservative Heartland Institute. Haskins’ title there is “director of the Socialism Research Center,” and his bio on the Heartland website describes him as a “widely published writer and political commentator.” In other words, not an “election expert,” as Trump described him.

    Here’s the relevant part of Carlson’s interview with Haskins:

    Carlson, April 26: Was there voter fraud? Well, we know there was some, but was it widespread? That is a hard allegation to prove, though, of course, many people believe there was widespread fraud. Well, now it turns out we know for a fact that there was, and in fact, it can be proven with a poll. Just ask people, “Did you personally commit voter fraud?” Well, that has just been done. The answer is, a huge percentage of people asked in the poll admitted, “Yes. I committed voter fraud.” It’s remarkable. …

    Haskins: So it was pretty straightforward. We asked people a series of questions. … One of the first questions was, “Did you vote in the 2020 election, and did you vote with an absentee ballot?” And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn’t tell them … that we were asking, “Did you commit voter fraud?” We just asked them about various behaviors.

    So, for example, we asked people, “Did you vote in a state where you’re no longer a legal resident?” That’s a pretty straightforward question. If you’re not a permanent resident of a state you can’t vote there. Seventeen percent of people, nearly 1 in 5, said yes, they did do that. We asked people, “Did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf?” That’s also illegal. You’re not allowed to fill out someone else’s ballot. Twenty-one percent of people said yes to that question. We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf, with or without their permission — we actually put that in the poll question — and 17% of people said yes to that. So all told it’s at least, and I say at least, 1 in 5 mail-in ballots involved some kind of fraudulent activity.

    In a post subsequent to the poll, the Heartland Institute argued, based on the “recently unearthed evidence indicating widespread mail-in voter fraud” indicated by the poll, that voter fraud swung the 2020 election from Trump to President Joe Biden.

    For starters, the Nov. 30 to Dec. 6 poll commissioned by Heartland and conducted by Rasmussen Reports did not prove “for a fact,” as Carlson put it, that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Nor is it “evidence” of fraud, as the Heartland Institute put it. It was a survey administered more than three years after the election.

    Haskins described the questions put to mail-in voters as “straightforward,” saying that “yes” answers were indicative of illegal behavior. But take the question, “During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident?” Seventeen percent said “yes.” A careful reading of the question would suggest those who responded yes admitted to voting in the wrong state. But how many of those people mistakenly answered yes because they had moved to a different state since the election, or mailed their ballot from a state that was not their permanent residence?

    Another question asked, “During the 2020 election, did a friend or family member fill out your ballot, in part or in full, on your behalf?” (19% said yes) and another asked whether respondents had helped a friend or family member fill out a mail-in ballot (21% said yes). Haskins said that kind of behavior is illegal. But that’s not always true.

    “We have seen an increase in attempts to frame assisting a person with a disability to vote as some sort of nefarious activity,” Michelle Bishop, manager for voter access and engagement for the National Disability Rights Network, told us via email. “It is indeed perfectly legal in every state to help a disabled person to fill out a mail-in ballot. It’s actually protected by federal law.”

    According to Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, “Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”

    The U.S. Department of Justice provides further guidance: “Voters with disabilities may receive assistance in all aspects of the voting process, including in requesting, completing, and returning a ballot, whether in person, absentee, or by mail-in ballot. For example, if a voter with a disability requires assistance to mark a ballot, the voter must be allowed to receive assistance from the person of their choosing and is not limited to assistance from an election worker.” That includes “qualified voters with a disability who reside in congregate settings such as nursing homes.”

    But experts told us there are other reasons to be skeptical of the poll’s findings. The Rasmussen Reports poll was a national survey of 1,085 “likely voters.” Pennsylvania is shaping up as one of the most important swing states of the 2024 election, which is likely why Trump singled out alleged voter fraud there. But a polling expert told us that “nothing can be said about Pennsylvania” from the Heartland poll because it was a national poll.

    Pennsylvania mail-in ballots being counted by Luzerne County employees during the 2020 election. Photo by Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images.

    According to Jon Krosnick, director of the Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford University, Rasmussen “is known to produce very biased results, typically pro-Republican.”

    Rasmussen Reports did not respond to our queries, but an FAQ page on its website states, “Rasmussen Reports is an independent polling firm with a bi-partisan staff. We do not endorse any political philosophies, parties or special interest groups.”

    According to its methodology page, Rasmussen Reports’ “survey questions are digitally recorded” and “[c]alls are placed to randomly selected” landline telephone numbers. It supplements those responses with surveys from an online panel maintained by Rasmussen.

    In 2023, ABC News sent a letter to Rasmussen Reports warning that the news organization’s polling site FiveThirtyEight was “considering formally banning Rasmussen Reports from its coverage.” The ABC News letter asked Rasmussen Reports to “explain the nature of its relationship with several right-leaning blogs and online media outlets, which have given us reason to doubt the ethical operation of the polling firm” and asked numerous questions about its methodology. In March, the Washington Post reported that FiveThirtyEight “dropped the right-wing polling firm Rasmussen Reports from inclusion in its polling averages and forecasts.”

    Part of the problem with Rasmussen Reports’ polls, Krosnick told us, is that it uses a digitally recorded voice to survey homes with landlines, and only about a quarter of Americans still have landlines. It is illegal to call cell phones with automated messages, Krosnick said, and so “people potentially reached by Rasmussen’s automated calls is not quite one quarter of American adults.”

    Rasmussen Reports notes that, “[l]ike many other pollsters, we now also draw a sizable percentage of our daily sample survey results from special demographically balanced Internet Panels to capture the growing number of people who no longer have landline telephones.”

    But Krosnick, a winner of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Lifetime Achievement Award for outstanding research, warns not to put much stock in that.

    “[T]he vast majority of Rasmussen data come from an ordinary opt-in online panel” in which participants actively seek to join rather than being randomly selected, “which AAPOR tells you cannot have a margin of error, because there is no systematic sampling involved,” Krosnick said. “The Rasmussen claim about ‘randomly selected’ means random selection from among a non-random subset of the American population. That doesn’t make the result a random sample of the national population.”

    The poll purports to have a “Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence,” but only 30% of those surveyed responded that they voted in 2020 via absentee or mail-in ballot. So those who said they voted by mail-in ballots represent a subset of the larger polling group. (The Election Assistance Commission reported that about 43% of the electorate voted by mail in 2020. A Pew Research Center survey found that 65% of mail or absentee voters voted for Biden, while only 33% voted for Trump.)

    “[P]roperly computed margins of error get bigger as sample size gets smaller,” Krosnick said. “So the margin of error on just a subset of respondents will be larger than for the full sample. But Rasmussen’s figure for the full sample is based on assumptions that are absolutely not met.”

    Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University and an election law expert who served from 2021 to 2022 as the White House’s first senior policy advisor for democracy and voting rights, further noted that “the poll seems to have found an intriguing amount of parity – just about half of the responses purportedly indicating fraud were Republicans.”

    (Heartland argues that the alleged fraud benefited Democrats more than Republicans because a larger percentage of Democrats voted by mail-in ballot.)

    Moreover, Levitt said, “the responses are sufficiently out of line with everything else we know that I find them very hard to trust at all.”

    “[T]he results are wildly out of line with literally all other incoming information, including the rate of ballots flagged in any jurisdiction anywhere in the country for signature mismatches,” Levitt told us via email. “It’s the equivalent of a national poll that has Trump – or Harris – up by 50%. Or a finding that the murder rate in a given area was 1 out of 3 adults. If you got results like that, you’d be plenty skeptical of the information, even without an obvious problem in the collection.”

    In an analysis of the Rasmussen poll when Trump touted it last December, the Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote that the findings of the poll fail “the smell test.”

    “A fifth of voters said they voted in a state where they no longer live? About 6 in 10 Americans have never moved out of the states in which they were born,” Bump wrote. “Half of the rest, we are meant to believe, committed an obvious form of election fraud three years ago.”

    Bump further mocked the finding that 8% of all voters answered “yes” to the question, “During the 2020 election, did a friend, family member, or organization, such as a political party, offer to pay or reward you for voting?”

    “[P]rofessional and amateur sleuths have also somehow not found evidence showing that 1 in 12 absentee voters — millions of people! — were offered cash for their votes,” Bump noted. “This would seem like it might leave a trail.”

    We reached out to the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees the state’s elections, about Trump’s claim that 20% of mail-in ballots may be fraudulent.

    “Voting by mail is safe and secure, and no evidence exists of widespread mail voting fraud in Pennsylvania,” the department told us in an emailed statement.

    “Mail ballot fraud has been proven to be exceptionally rare,” the statement continued. “Claims of systemic voter fraud are devoid of any supporting evidence and have consistently been rejected by judges, government agencies, and election experts across the political spectrum.”

    An Associated Press review of potential voter fraud cases in six swing states found fewer than 475 instances of potential fraud – “a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election.” Election expert Richard Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, wrote in a 2020 op-ed in the Washington Post: “While certain pockets of the country have seen their share of absentee-ballot scandals, problems are extremely rare in the five states that rely primarily on vote-by-mail, including the heavily Republican state of Utah.”

    A signature is required to vote in Pennsylvania, but the commonwealth does not require election officials to verify signatures. In fact, facing lawsuits, state officials in 2020 told county officials they could not reject a ballot solely on the belief that a signature on the ballot doesn’t match the voter’s signature on file.

    However, the DOS statement said, “Mail voting in Pennsylvania has multiple layers of security that involve registered voters having to provide appropriate ID before their mail ballot can be counted and that prevent any voter from casting more than one ballot in any given election. Pennsylvanians have been voting by mail since the Civil War, and the process has a long history of being safe and secure.”


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source

  • False Claims of Backlash to Taylor Swift’s Endorsement of Harris

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president on Sept. 10. Social media posts falsely claim that, as a result, Swift’s ticket sales have plummeted and some of her concerts and a major endorsement deal have been canceled. The remaining U.S. shows on Swift’s Eras tour are all sold out, and she has not lost her partnership with Coca-Cola.


    Full Story

    In October 2020, just hours before the 2020 vice presidential debate, singer-songwriter Taylor Swift announced her support for the Democratic presidential ticket of then-Vice President Joe Biden and then-Sen. Kamala Harris in an issue of V Magazine.

    Swift shared the magazine cover to Instagram, writing, “So apt that it’s come out on the night of the VP debate. Gonna be watching and supporting @KamalaHarris by yelling at the tv a lot.”

    Swift’s endorsement for the 2024 presidential election was much anticipated by both sides. Swift was among the rumored special guests for the Democratic National Convention. On the eve of the DNC, former President Donald Trump shared an AI-generated image of the singer endorsing him to Truth Social, writing, “I accept!”

    But on Sept. 10, minutes after the presidential debate between Harris and Trump concluded, Swift took to Instagram to announce her support for the Democratic presidential ticket. 

    “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election,” she wrote in her post, which has received more than 11 million likes. 

    Swift, who often has been the subject of political misinformation, as we’ve written, said in her post that she was inspired to make a public endorsement after Trump shared the AI image of her. “The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth,” she wrote.

    But, once again, Swift has become the target of misinformation. Several social media posts have falsely claimed that backlash from Swift’s endorsement has caused her ticket sales to plummet and cost her a major sponsor.

    A Sept. 16 Facebook post, which has received more than 25,000 interactions, shared an article headline claiming Swift has canceled tour dates due to low ticket sales: “Taylor Swift Forced to Cancel Eras Tour Dates Following Endorsement Backlash: ‘Only 2,300 Tickets Sold.’”

    The headline was originally published on Esspots, a self-described “fake news” site, on Sept. 14, where it was tagged as satire. But other websites and social media posts have published the same or similar headlines without labeling it as satire.

    A Facebook post from Sept. 16, for example, shared an article headline saying, “Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour Faces Devastating Blow: A Mere 2,000 Tickets Sold Amid Backlash Over Controversial Endorsement.” And a Sept. 18 Facebook post, which received 6,700 interactions, shared the headline: “SHOCK SHOWDOWN: Taylor Swift Cancels Eras Tour Dates Amid Backlash – Only 2,300 Tickets Sold!”

    But none of Swift’s scheduled tour dates have been canceled, according to her website, which lists concerts planned in Miami, New Orleans and Indianapolis in October and November. All of those dates are sold out.

    We reached out to Swift’s representatives for comment on the social media posts, but we didn’t get a response.

    Other social media posts have shared headlines claiming Coca-Cola has ended the company’s long-term partnership with Swift, a claim which also originated on Esspots, where it was tagged as satire. A Sept. 16 Instagram post shared an article headline saying, “Coca-Cola Cuts Ties, Deal Worth $625 Million cut off From Taylor Swift Over Harris Endorsement, ‘We Don’t Support Her Endorsement.’”

    A representative for Coca-Cola told us in a Sept. 20 email that this claim is false.

    Swift did face some criticism from Trump and conservative media personalities following her endorsement. On Sept. 11, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly reacted to the endorsement, posting on X, “You can kiss your sales to the Republican audience goodbye, Taylor.” On Sept. 15, Trump posted to Truth Social, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”


    Sources

    Coca-Cola. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 20 Sep 2024.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Online Posts Share Altered Photo of Taylor Swift With Bogus Political Sign.” FactCheck.org. 2 Feb 2024.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Posts Make Unfounded Claim About Swift and Kelce’s Post-Election Plans.” FactCheck.org. 16 Feb 2024.

    Nehamas, Nicholas, et al. “Taylor Swift Endorses Kamala Harris.” New York Times. 10 Sep 2024.

    Rosenzweig, Mathias. “V127: The Thought Leaders Issue With Taylor Swift.” V Magazine. 7 Oct 2020.

    Taylor Swift. “International Dates.” taylorswift.com. Accessed 20 Sep 2024.

    Taylor Swift. “U.S. Dates.” taylorswift.com. Accessed 20 Sep 2024.

    Tenbarge, Kat. “Trump shares AI-generated images of Taylor Swift and her fans supporting him.” NBC. 19 Aug 2024.

    Trump, Donald (@realDonaldTrump). “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” Truth Social. 15 Sep 2024.

    Via y Radá, Nicole and Marianne Sotomayor. “Taylor Swift endorses Joe Biden for President.” NBC. 7 Oct 2020.

    Wagmeister, Elizabeth, et al. “Hollywood heads to Chicago for the Democratic convention, as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift speculation swirls.” CNN. 18 Aug 2024.

    Weisholtz, Drew and Candice Williams. “Taylor Swift to bring ‘Eras Tour’ to more US cities and Canada.” Today. 3 Aug 2023.

    Source

  • Apparent Assassination Attempt on Trump Sparks Unfounded Claims of ‘Inside Job’

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    The arrest of Ryan Wesley Routh in an apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has sparked unfounded claims online that Routh had “inside” knowledge of Trump’s plans. Public reports about Trump’s schedule indicated his likely whereabouts, and evidence shows Routh staked out the site for about 12 hours.


    Full Story

    Former President Donald Trump was golfing at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Sept. 15, when authorities fired shots at Ryan Wesley Routh, who is now under investigation for an apparent assassination attempt on Trump’s life.

    Routh, 58, was apprehended after a Secret Service agent spotted what appeared to be a rifle poking out of shrubbery several hundred yards from where Trump was playing. The agent discharged his firearm when he saw the rifle but, the gunman fled the scene in a sport utility vehicle. He was later captured by local sheriffs’ officers, according to the criminal complaint.

    Agents who searched the area on the golf course perimeter recovered a digital camera, a backpack, a loaded SKS-style semiautomatic rifle with a scope and a black plastic bag containing food. Routh was charged with possessing a firearm by a convicted felon and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, the criminal complaint said.

    The FBI is leading the ongoing investigation into the incident, and more charges could be filed.

    The former president was unharmed, and he later posted on social media, thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement for their work. He wrote, “It was certainly an interesting day!”

    “The president wasn’t even really supposed to go there,” Ronald L. Rowe Jr., acting director of the Secret Service, said at a news conference on Sept. 16, referring to the golf course. “It was not on his official schedule.”

    This marked the apparent second assassination attempt on Trump in recent months. The first occurred on July 13 during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a gunman gained a clear sight line to fire several shots, one of which grazed Trump’s ear. The gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old resident of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, was killed by Secret Service agents at the scene. We’ve previously written about misinformation that followed the shooting, in which one rally attendee was killed and two others were wounded.

    The recent incident in Florida has fueled unfounded claims that Routh must have had inside knowledge of Trump’s whereabouts and schedule. 

    A Sept. 16 post on Threads read, “How does someone who’s from North Carolina and lives in Hawaii know where to be in Florida, at the exact location, at the exact golf course, where 45 made a last minute decision to play golf?”

    Conservative commentator Graham Allen posted a video on Instagram on Sept. 16 saying, “How did the shooter know the location of the President when it was a NON public/LAST minute decision?! INSIDE JOB!!!!”

    However, there is no evidence to support the claims that Routh had “inside” information about Trump. Deducing where Trump would be on Sept. 15, a Sunday, was not difficult, even without notice on an official schedule.

    On Sept. 12, Trump posted on X about a planned livestreaming event from his residence and golf club at Mar-a-Lago at 8 p.m. on Sept. 16 to introduce the crypto platform World Liberty Financial. World Liberty Financial also publicized Trump’s involvement in the livestream, making his likely location public knowledge.

    There are also online accounts that track the movement of Trump’s planes. This kind of public tracking adds to the available information about Trump’s location and activities.

    In addition, news reports have noted that Trump frequently plays golf at his course when he’s in Florida. A BBC article from West Palm Beach reported, “Residents say Trump spends almost every Sunday at the West Palm Beach golf club when he is not on the campaign trail.”

    The criminal complaint against Routh suggests that he arrived at the tree-lined fence of the golf course’s southern perimeter at 1:59 a.m. on Sept. 15, based on the location data from his cell phone. 

    “Agents requested T-Mobile, on an emergency basis, to provide law enforcement with information pertaining to Routh’s mobile phone usage. Those records indicated that Routh’s mobile phone was located in the vicinity of the area along the tree line described above from approximately 1:59 am until approximately 1:31 pm on September 15,” the complaint says. Routh apparently didn’t know the exact time Trump would be there since he staked out the golf course for nearly 12 hours.

    The Secret Service has had concerns about Trump’s vulnerability while golfing, particularly at his own clubs, because they are near public roads. According to the Washington Post, Secret Service agents presented Trump with photos taken by news photographers with long-range lenses to capture images of Trump golfing at his club in Sterling, Virginia. Officials told Trump that if photographers could get clear shots of the president, potential gunmen could do the same.

    “He selects locations to golf — his own clubs — that are particularly difficult to secure. And then he follows a highly predictable routine on any given weekend,” the Post reported.


    Sources

    Associated Press. ”LIVE: Secret Service press conference after Trump apparent assassination attempt.” YouTube. 16 Sep 2024.

    FactCheck.org. “Misinformation Swirls After Attempted Assassination.” 19 Jul 2024.

    FBI. Press release. “Update on the FBI investigation of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.” 15 Jul 2024.

    Halpert, Madeline. “Gunman lurked for hours before Trump’s last-minute game of golf.” BBC News. 16 Sep 2024.

    Herb, Jeremy. “Inside the fateful 12 hours of an apparent assassination attempt outside the Trump International Golf Club.” CNN. 17 Sep 2024.

    Kelly, Kate, Eileen Sullivan and Luke Broadwater. “Secret Service Scrambled After Trump’s Short Notice on Golf Outing.” New York Times. 17 Sep 2024.

    Leonnig, Carol D., Josh Dawsey and Isaac Stanley-Becker. “Trump’s golf outings have long concerned Secret Service.” Washington Post. 16 Sep 2024.

    Trump Jet (Tracking). bsky.app/profile/trumpjet.grndcntrl.net. Accessed 19 Sep 2024.

    United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. Criminal Cover Sheet. “United States of America vs. Ryan Wesley Routh.” 15 Sep 2024.

    WLFI (@worldlibertyfi). “Join us live from Mar-A-Lago on September 16 at 8 pm EST with Donald J. Trump! Tune in to hear our vision for making finance great again.” X. 12 Sep 2024.



    Source

  • What We Know About Ryan Routh’s Political Affiliations

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Rumors about Ryan Wesley Routh, who staked out Trump International Golf Club in Florida on Sept. 15, have been flying on social media. Some claim he “is a registered democrat.” Others claim he “is a Republican.” Routh was once registered as a Democrat, but said he voted for Donald Trump in 2016. He is not currently registered with any party.


    Full Story

    Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, is facing two federal gun charges after authorities say he may have been planning to assassinate former President Donald Trump. The investigation is continuing and more charges may be filed.

    Routh didn’t fire any shots, but cell phone data collected by police showed that he had situated himself in a wooded area near the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, for about 12 hours before a Secret Service agent noticed a rifle “poking out of the tree line” on Sept. 15, while Trump was there playing golf. Routh fled after the agent fired in the direction of the rifle, according to the criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

    Ryan Wesley Routh, a suspect in an apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in Florida on Sept. 15, is placed under arrest. Photo by Martin County Sheriff’s Office / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images.

    Police arrested Routh on I-95 and found a loaded semiautomatic rifle with a scope near where he allegedly had been by the golf course.

    Routh has been charged in federal court with possession of a firearm by a felon and possession and receipt of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

    Following Routh’s arrest, Trump wrote a series of posts on his social media platform, Truth Social. He first thanked law enforcement officers for their work that day. The next day he sought campaign donations with the message, “FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!!!” and blamed Democratic politicians and “Communist Left Rhetoric” for getting “bullets … flying.”

    Other social media users took the political associations further, posting claims that Routh “looks like a MAGA republican but is a registered democrat” and that he “is intimately connected to the highest echelons of the Democratic Party.” The only evidence offered to support the claim of Routh’s connection to Democratic leaders was a photo of Routh with chef José Andrés, whom President Joe Biden appointed as the co-chair of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition.

    Those on the left made claims emphasizing parts of Routh’s background that make him seem conservative. One post, for example, said that Routh “voted for Trump in 2016, was a huge anti-vaxx conspiracy nut,” and “showed support for Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.” Another went even further and falsely claimed that Routh is a registered Republican. “MAGA’s can try to spin this all they want, but Ryan Wesley Routh (today’s shooter) is a Republican and voted for Trump in 2016,” one post on Threads claimed.

    Here’s what we know about Routh and his political affiliations:

    Routh first registered to vote in North Carolina in 1988 as a Democrat, according to records provided to FactCheck.org by the North Carolina State Board of Elections. He changed his party affiliation to “unaffiliated” in 2002 and was removed from the voter rolls the following year due to a felony conviction.

    Routh had pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon of mass destruction in December 2002 for an incident involving an explosive device described in court records as a binary explosive (which means there were two components that would be mixed together to cause an explosion) with a blasting cap, or detonator. Publicly available records do not explain the circumstances of the arrest. We reached out to the lawyer who defended Routh in the case and the prosecutor who handled it, but we didn’t hear back from either one.

    In North Carolina, felons can register to vote again after they have served their sentence. Routh re-registered in 2005 and remained unaffiliated with a party, according to the records provided by the state board of elections.

    Routh was again removed from the voter rolls in 2010 following another felony conviction.

    He pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of stolen property in March 2010, involving the possession of two marble bathroom sinks worth $180, possession of welding equipment worth more than $1,000, and three kayaks worth more than $1,000.

    According to the application for a search warrant included in the court records, Routh, who owned a roofing company, had kept the stolen items in a trailer on his property and in a warehouse associated with his business.

    Routh re-registered to vote again in 2012 and was, again, unaffiliated with a political party.

    Sometime around 2018, Routh moved to Hawaii and started a business that would build simple structures to house homeless people.

    Voting records aren’t public in Hawaii, but Vaughn Cotham, a senior elections clerk in Honolulu’s election division, confirmed to us in a phone interview that Routh is actively registered to vote. He is not registered with a party, Cotham said, explaining that Hawaii doesn’t keep party affiliation on record. Hawaii has open primaries, which means that voters can cast ballots in either party’s primary elections. Cotham was unable to provide the date when Routh registered or in which elections Routh had voted.

    According to public records, Routh voted in the Democratic primary in North Carolina in March. North Carolina allows unaffiliated voters to choose which party’s primary to vote in, but those voters can participate in only one primary election.

    For most of the time Routh was registered to vote, he didn’t make contributions to federal campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission records. But, starting in 2019, Routh began making modest donations — totaling about $140 — to support Democrats.

    The political views that Routh expressed on social media were varied. He reportedly wrote on his now-suspended X account in 2020 that he had voted for Trump in 2016, but had become disappointed with the former president. He also expressed support at the time for independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, both of whom had sought the Democratic nomination for president that year. Gabbard has since left the Democratic Party to become an independent.

    In January, Routh reportedly expressed support for Vivek Ramaswamy, who was seeking the Republican nomination for president.

    Routh had also developed strong views about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and, in February 2023, published an e-book on Amazon that is generally supportive of Ukraine.

    So, Routh has a mixed political history. What we do know is that he has not been a registered member of a political party since 2002.


    Sources

    Federal Bureau of Investigation. Press release. “FBI Statement on Incident in West Palm Beach, Florida.” 15 Sep 2024.

    News Conference on Investigation Into Apparent Assassination Attempt on Former President Trump. C-SPAN. 16 Sep 2024.

    U.S. v. Ryan Wesley Routh. Case no. 9:24-mj-08441. Criminal complaint. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 16 Sep 2024.

    Gannon, Patrick. Spokesman, North Carolina State Board of Elections. Email to FactCheck.org. 16 Sep 2024.

    State of North Carolina v. Ryan Wesley Routh. Case No. 02CR083088-400. Docket. Guilford Superior Court. Disposed 20 Dec 2002.

    State of North Carolina v. Ryan Wesley Routh. Case No. 02CR083088-400. Guilford Superior Court. Disposed 20 Dec 2002.

    State of North Carolina v. Ryan Wesley Routh. Case No. 10CR068060-400. Docket. Guilford Superior Court. Disposed 3 Mar 2010.

    State of North Caroline v. Ryan Wesley Routh. Case No. 10CR068059-400. Guilford Superior Court. Disposed 3 Mar 2010.

    Huff, Daryl. “Suspect in Trump’s apparent assassination attempt had no ties to Ukraine peace movement in Hawaii.” Hawaii News Now. 16 Sep 2024.

    Cotham, Vaughn. Senior elections clerk, Honolulu Election Division. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 16 Sep 2024.

    North Carolina State Board of Elections. Ryan Wesley Routh voter details. Accessed 16 Sep 2024.

    Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions — Routh, Ryan. Accessed 19 Sep 2024.

    Brennan, David, Chris Looft and Julia Reinstein. “Trump suspect told Iran ‘you are free to assassinate Trump’ in apparent self-published book.” ABC News. 16 Sep 2024.

    Source

  • Posts Misrepresent Police Reports Preceding Trump Rally in New York

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Former President Donald Trump has been the target of two assassination attempts over the past three months. Viral posts are now spreading the false claim that police discovered explosives in a vehicle near a Trump campaign rally in New York on Sept. 18. Police said the claim is “unfounded.”


    Full Story

    Two assassination attempts have been aimed at former President Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential race.

    The first attempt occurred July 13 during a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania, when 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks fired shots from the roof of a nearby building, grazing Trump in the right ear. Crooks was killed by Secret Service agents at the scene. One rally attendee died in the shooting and two others were injured.

    Another apparent assassination attempt occurred Sept. 15, when a Secret Service agent saw the barrel of a gun and opened fire in the direction of Ryan Wesley Routh, who was reportedly hiding in trees with a loaded, SKS-style semiautomatic rifle with a scope near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the former president was playing a round of golf. Routh fled the scene and was later arrested on gun charges, pending a further investigation that could result in more serious charges. 

    But a recent claim of a possible third attempt on Trump’s life has been debunked by police and the Secret Service following a campaign rally at the Nassau Coliseum in Uniondale, New York, on Sept. 18. 

    A Sept. 18 post on Instagram shared a screenshot of an X post by James Lalino, a journalist formerly associated with Project Veritas. Lalino’s post said, in part, “Sources in the Nassau County Police Department just told me that ‘the perimeter was breached and a blue barrel was removed’ from the area surrounding tonight’s Trump rally sight. Source said, ‘During K9, doing their checks, they found an explosive device in one of the vehicles and that driver ended up running into the woods.”

    A Sept. 19 Instagram post by the website Valuetainment claimed, “Police Reportedly Find Explosives in Vehicle Near Long Island Trump Rally.” The caption on the post, which received nearly 14,000 likes, said, “According to unconfirmed reports, Nassau County Police allegedly discovered explosives in a car parked near the site of former President Donald Trump’s rally in Long Island, New York ahead of his scheduled Wednesday night speech.”

    But a Nassau County Police Department public information officer told us on Sept. 19 that claims that explosives were found near the Trump rally were “unfounded.” 

    A Sept. 18 statement from the Nassau County police said: “The Public Information Office reports a suspicious incident that occurred in Uniondale. Reports of explosives being found at the site are unfounded. There is a person who is being questioned who may have been training a bomb detection dog near the site. The individual with the bomb dog falsely reported explosives being found and that individual is currently being detained by police.”

    Nate Herring, a spokesperson with the Secret Service, told us in a phone interview that the incident reported by the Nassau County police was “unrelated” to the Trump rally and had “no protective nexus to the Trump rally that occurred in New York.”

    Since the assassination attempt on Sept. 15, a number of Republican lawmakers have called for a higher level of security around Trump leading up to the Nov. 5 election. President Joe Biden also has stressed the importance of giving the Secret Service additional support. 

    At a news conference on Sept. 16, Ronald Rowe, acting director of the Secret Service, said Trump has the “highest levels of protection” and that the elements put in place following the attack in July “are working.”


    Sources

    Associated Press. “Biden says Secret Service ‘needs more help’ after apparent 2nd Trump assassination attempt.” 16 Sep 2024.

    Associated Press. “Secret Service acting director says agency’s protective measures are ‘working.’” 16 Sep 2024.

    Cohen, Zachary and Evan Perez. “Justice Department trying to build an attempted assassination case against man accused in Trump incident at golf course.” CNN. 19 Sep 2024.

    Herb, Jeremy, Zachary Cohen and Kevin Liptak. “‘The Secret Service needs more help’: Trump protection scrutinized after apparent assassination attempt.” CNN. 16 Sep 2024.

    Herring, Nate. Spokesperson, U.S. Secret Service. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Sep 2024. 

    Johnson, Julia. “GOP demands Trump have ‘same level’ Secret Service protection as Biden after 2nd assassination attempt.” Fox News. 17 Sep 2024.

    Nassau County Police Department. Public Information Office. Suspicious Incident – Uniondale. 18 Sep 2024.

    Nassau County Police Department. Spokesperson, phone interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Sep 2024.

    Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Posts Baselessly Suggest Others Were Involved in Trump’s Assassination Attempt.” Factcheck.org. 18 Jul 2024.

    U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Public Affairs. “Suspect at Trump International Golf Course Charged with Firearms Offenses.” 16 Sep 2024. 



    Source

  • Vance’s Misleading Claim About Immigrants and Murders in Springfield, Ohio

    Former President Donald Trump created a stir when he made the baseless claim in a Sept. 10 presidential debate that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the pets” of their new neighbors — repeating a rumor that his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, circulated on social media one day earlier.

    Now, Vance has cherry-picked data to make the unfounded claim that immigrants are responsible for an 81% increase in the city’s murders.

    On CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Vance was asked about his Sept. 9 post on X that immigrants are abducting and eating pets in Springfield. Vance deflected the question by talking about the “terrible problems caused by [Vice President] Kamala Harris’ open border in Springfield.”

    “Thanks to her open border, murders are up 81% in Springfield, Ohio,” Vance claimed in the Sept. 15 interview.

    The Springfield Police Division provided us crime data for the last 10 years, dating to 2014, that show there were nine murders in 2023. That’s a 50% increase from the six murders in 2022, and an 80% increase from 2021 — but one fewer than the 10 murders in 2020, when Trump was president. The number of murders in 2023 was equal to or lower than the number of murders in three of the four years that Trump was president, despite the apparent increase in the city’s population. (See the chart below.)

    As for the number of murders in 2024, a city police official told us that there have been four to date — which puts the city on track for fewer murders than last year, and about the same as 2022. (We found news accounts of three reported murders in the city. The police official said the fourth was a shooting over this past weekend that resulted in one death.)

    We also could find no evidence to support Vance’s claim that immigrants are responsible for committing murders. The city does not keep track of the ethnicity of those accused of committing crimes other than the two broad categories of Hispanic and non-Hispanic, a police official told us. None of the news reports about the murders committed in 2024 mentions the ethnicity of the suspected murderer.

    In an FAQ on the city’s immigrant population, the city addressed concerns about Haitians being responsible for more crime. “Haitians are more likely to be the victims of crime than they are to be the perpetrators in our community. Clark County jail data shows there are 199 inmates in our county jail this week. Two of them are Haitian. That’s 1% (as of Sept. 8),” the city website says.

    We asked the Trump campaign about Vance’s claim, but we did not get a response.

    Haitian Population in Springfield

    Springfield has become a focal point in the national debate over immigration because large numbers of Haitians who were granted legal status in the United States have settled in the city over the last several years.

    In his CBS News interview and at a Sept. 18 rally in North Carolina, Vance said that there are 20,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield. In a Sept. 18 rally in Long Island, Trump boosted the figure, saying that there was “no crime” in the city before claiming that “32,000 illegal immigrants” came into town “in a period of a few weeks.” But Mayor Rob Rue put the city’s total immigrant population at between 12,000 and 15,000, which is also on the city’s FAQ page.

    “We have realistically been saying 12 to 15,000 immigrants is what we’ve, what we have counted through the health department and other agencies that we work with,” Rue said in a Sept. 10 press conference.

    The Census Bureau estimates the city’s total population at 58,662 people, as of 2020.

    The influx of immigrants helped solve a labor shortage, the Wall Street Journal reported this week, but also has strained the city’s services. Earlier this month, Gov. Mike DeWine announced that the state would provide state troopers to help with traffic control and enforcement in Springfield and $2.5 million to help the city expand primary health care for its residents.

    The help with traffic enforcement came a little more than a year after an 11-year-old boy died in an accident last August when a Haitian driver hit a school bus. The driver, Hermanio Joseph, was sentenced to nine to 13 years in prison on charges of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide.

    The boy’s death had become a talking point for Trump and Vance in their campaign against Harris.

    In a Sept. 9 social media post, the Trump campaign said, “REMEMBER: 11-year-old Aiden Clark was killed on his way to school by a Haitian migrant that Kamala Harris let into the country in Springfield, Ohio.” A day later, Vance posted on X that the boy had been “murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.”

    At a city commissioners’ meeting on Sept. 10, the boy’s father appealed to Vance and others to stop using his son’s name as a “political tool.” That same night, Trump said during the presidential debate: “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” A day earlier, Vance had posted on X: “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

    But, as we wrote, Springfield police said in a statement that “there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.” Rue also told CNN that there were “no verifiable” reports of such activity.

    Likewise, Vance’s claim that “murders are up 81% in Springfield” because of immigrants is unsupported by the facts.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source

  • Q&A on the Second International Mpox Emergency

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    In 2022, mpox — a disease caused by the monkeypox virus, which is found in small mammals and has been known to infect people in parts of Africa for decades — burst into greater international awareness. The virus, which causes a painful rash and can be deadly, spread around the world, primarily among men who have sex with men. In response, the World Health Organization and the U.S. government declared public health emergencies.

    Mpox cases outside Africa subsequently decreased, and the public health emergencies were declared over in 2023. The global outbreak is still ongoing, but case numbers have fallen significantly. In the U.S., for example, the number of people diagnosed with mpox is down from a high of 11,000 cases per month in the summer of 2022 to 250 cases per month now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

    However, the situation in Africa in recent years has noticeably worsened. On Aug. 14, the WHO once again declared an mpox public health emergency of international concern. A day earlier, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention had declared a public health emergency of continental security.

    Especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, mpox cases are surging — this time primarily from two other types of the virus. As of late August, there have been more than 20,000 mpox cases and more than 600 deaths reported in Africa in 2024, although not all are confirmed cases, given a dearth of access to testing. This compares with around 15,000 reported cases in 2023.

    One type of the virus has now spread to countries in Africa where mpox has not been historically reported. Sweden and Thailand have also each reported one imported case.

    The WHO declared the public health emergency in recognition of the extraordinary nature of the current outbreaks, the international spread of mpox and the need for a coordinated international response.

    The hope is that the international public health emergency will galvanize the kind of global cooperation and resource-sharing needed to control the outbreaks in Africa. “What’s being done right now on the ground to try and contain this virus, certainly in DRC, is falling onto the backs of our Congolese colleagues who are the experts in the world at mpox,” Jason Kindrachuk, who studies the circulation and transmission of emerging animal-derived viruses at the University of Manitoba, told us, referring to the Democratic Republic of Congo, also known as simply Congo. “If we give them the support, they will be able to get this contained.”

    We spoke with experts about the current increase in mpox cases, the international public health emergency and what this means for people in Africa and globally.

    Where are the various mpox outbreaks?

    There are three different outbreaks of mpox: two centered in Congo and the ongoing global outbreak that was recognized in 2022.

    One of the Congolese outbreaks is occurring in western and central parts of the country, primarily among children, and is thought to be spreading the way mpox historically has spread — via contact with infected animals, followed by limited subsequent spread to other people through close contact. There are also cases in some other nearby countries where mpox is traditionally found.

    The other outbreak is in eastern Congo, where mpox is not typically reported. This outbreak is spreading among adults, including among sex workers, as well as affecting children in a refugee camp. This outbreak has spread to four nearby nations — Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi — and led to at least two other cases outside of Africa.

    How else are the mpox outbreaks different?

    Of the two major types, or clades, of monkeypox virus, both Congolese outbreaks are due to clade I, whereas the global outbreak is due to clade II.

    The two clades have sporadically infected people for decades, but in different parts of Africa. Clade I cases have typically occurred in central Africa, with higher reported mortality rates, while clade II cases have largely occurred in West Africa.

    As we’ve written, traditionally, monkeypox has primarily been transmitted to humans from animals such as rodents and other small mammals when people consume or prepare undercooked bushmeat, or when they are bitten, scratched or otherwise have close contact with live animals. Subsequent spread between people can occur, but is usually limited, because it requires close contact between people or with infected materials.

    In 2022, however, the virus showed more sustained transmission between humans, spreading to previously unaffected areas around the world, often within sexual networks of men who have sex with men.

    Genetic sequencing of the viruses involved in that outbreak, which remains ongoing and is now recognized to have begun in Nigeria as early as 2014, showed that they belonged to a subset of clade II viruses, which scientists now refer to as clade IIb.

    Following this development, researchers wondered if clade I monkeypox virus similarly had the potential to show sustained spread via dense sexual networks, and they started to monitor for such cases, Kindrachuk, the University of Manitoba scientist, said. 

    By fall 2023, scientists including Kindrachuk were tracking an outbreak of mpox in previously largely unaffected areas in eastern Congo.

    The scientists showed that the virus spread via sexual contact involving both men and women in a mining region, with many sex workers affected. The newly described viruses, linked to “more sustained human-to-human transmission,” appear to have started spreading between people around September 2023 and were assigned to a new subclade, clade 1b, he said.

    The majority of mpox cases in Congo, however, continue to be among children in the west and central areas. These clade I infections — now called clade 1a infections — have been increasing for many years, driving the “very dramatic increase” in cases between 2022 and 2023 and a still further increase this year, Kindrachuk said.

    Why did the WHO declare a public health emergency?

    The WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern stemmed from multiple mpox outbreaks occurring simultaneously, Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious disease physician who works on emerging diseases, told us. Kuppalli formerly worked for the WHO on its mpox team.

    Health care workers at an mpox treatment center near Goma, Congo, on Aug. 17, 2024. Photo by Guerchom Ndebo / AFP via Getty Images.

    Clade Ib mpox has continued to spread in previously largely unaffected, eastern regions of Congo. This spread is linked to sexual contact among both men and women, Kindrachuk said, but also via close contact, such as suspected transmission between children and within households, as well as spread in a refugee camp in Goma. “It’s not just an STI,” he said, referring to a sexually transmitted infection.

    As of early September, clade Ib mpox also has been identified in four other African countries and in two travelers arriving in Thailand and Sweden from affected countries.

    Kindrachuk expressed particular concern about the spread of the clade 1b virus in Burundi, where there have been more than 700 reported cases as of late August, most occurring in children. Burundi has “extremely” limited resources for health care and response to the outbreak, he said.

    For an international public health emergency to be declared, Kuppalli said, there must be an “extraordinary” event. The emergence of clade Ib viruses with sustained human-to-human transmission was considered extraordinary and is one factor behind the international public health emergency declaration. The international spread of clade 1b virus also contributed to the declaration.

    However, in parallel with the clade 1b outbreak, there has been an “exponential” increase in clade 1a mpox in Congo, Kuppalli said, for reasons that are unclear. 

    “It’s not as simple … as they declared the [international public health emergency] because of clade 1b,” Kuppalli said. “That was part of it, but it was not the whole reason.” The uptick in cases, “which is mostly due to clade Ia,” was also part of the reason, she said.

    The final factor required for an international public health emergency is a need for international collaboration, Kuppalli said. After the 2022-2023 emergency was declared over, the WHO emergency committee said that the outbreak was not over and encouraged the global community to keep providing resources and support, “particularly to Africa,” she said. “That didn’t happen.”

    “The public health emergency in my mind was really trying to match the current situation in DRC, the escalation of what has been happening there, the lack of vaccines, lack of therapeutics, certainly lack of diagnostic capacity, as well as that movement out of the country into additional locations,” Kindrachuk said.

    How can people prevent and treat mpox?

    There are vaccines available for mpox, and in the U.S., there is no shortage of vaccines for eligible people. (Americans are recommended to get mpox vaccines if they have certain sexual risk factors and are gay or bisexual men, men who have sex with men, or are transgender or gender nonconforming, or if they have intimate contact with someone meeting one of those descriptions or someone who may have mpox.)

    This is in contrast to the situation in Congo and other African countries, where vaccines have been “nonexistent,” Kindrachuk said.

    A public health emergency of international concern is the WHO’s highest level of alert and comes with recommendations for countries on how to respond, obligations for international cooperation, release of WHO funds and appeals for funding.

    Scientists hope the international public health emergency will spur the action needed to control the outbreaks. “We’ve seen vaccine deployment discussions go from potentially being deployment in months to now deployment within weeks or a week,” Kindrachuk said of the effect of the international public health emergency so far. The first vaccine donations arrived in Nigeria Aug. 27 and in Congo Sept. 5. 

    “It’s never going to be fast enough, it hasn’t been fast enough, but things are moving,” Kindrachuk said.

    Vaccines are one important tool, Kuppalli and Kindrachuk both said, but there also needs to be more research to understand basic information on mpox, as well as more access to diagnostics. Another key piece of the response is communication to people in various communities.

    And there needs to be better access to good clinical care for mpox. A clinical trial recently found that an antiviral used during the clade II outbreak, called Tpoxx, is not effective against clade I mpox. But the trial inadvertently revealed how effective good supportive care can be.

    Kuppalli explained that participants in the trial hospitalized for clade I mpox died at much lower rates than is typical in Congo – 1.7% versus 3.6% or higher — and that this was simply because they got good supportive care. This includes things like “IV fluids, optimal pain management, wound care for the lesions to prevent them from getting infected” and managing complications such as eye problems, brain inflammation or scarring of the skin, she said.

    Why is clade I mpox on the rise now?

    It is unclear why there has been such a dramatic rise in clade I mpox cases in Congo, largely driven so far by clade Ia cases.

    Kuppalli said that one possible explanation for the increased cases could be changes in ecology. Shifts related to climate change or urbanization could be changing the geographic range of animal species that carry the virus or the amount of contact people have with the animals, Kindrachuk further explained.

    Researchers also have suggested that human population growth, the spread of farming further into forested land or diminishing numbers of large animals available to hunt could have changed humans’ level of contact with small rodent species, leading to mpox cases.

    Another question is whether there is “a piece of this that is just related to increased capacity for surveillance as well as increased community knowledge,” Kindrachuk said. The recent dramatic increase in cases came after the 2022 outbreak, which gave people access to more information on mpox, he said.

    There could also be some change affecting the mostly younger people who get clade Ia mpox, such as an increase in malnourishment or an increase in another infectious disease like measles, Kuppalli said. These factors could make children more susceptible to mpox.

    Another factor is smallpox. Mpox is related to the more severe disease, so previous exposure to smallpox or smallpox vaccination protects against mpox. But because smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, people in younger generations have never gotten smallpox or been vaccinated against it. Scientists believe that mpox is infecting more people as smallpox immunity in the population wanes.

    How severe is clade I mpox?

    Experts urged caution in interpreting data on mpox severity.

    “Historically, clade I was associated with more severe disease” than clade II, Kindrachuk said, but “there’s a lot of context and nuance that needs to be included.”

    Case fatality rates for a virus are simply a measure of how many reported cases are fatal. This can be an indicator of the virus’s fundamental lethality, but the case fatality rate also depends on whether mild cases are reported and the context in which cases are occurring. 

    For instance, in Congo, there is limited access to testing, and mild cases may go unreported, Kindrachuk said. “The true lethality for the broader population, including high-income countries and low-income countries, we don’t fully understand,” he said.

    Kindrachuk added that some data indicate that clade 1a virus has a higher case fatality rate than clade 1b virus. But whether clade 1a is really more lethal remains unknown. Given that more clade 1a cases are in children, and the disease tends to be more dangerous for children, he said, a higher case fatality rate is not surprising.

    Does clade I mpox pose a global threat?

    There is a possibility that clade I mpox will spread more broadly, particularly if the outbreaks in Africa remain uncontrolled. 

    “When we talk about the global north, I think the risk continues to be very, very low,” Kindrachuk said. “We’ve had mpox still circulating for the last two years,” he continued, referring to the limited clade II mpox cases that continue to be diagnosed globally. “We haven’t seen the movement out into children or into schools or into broader communities.”

    Currently, the U.S. CDC considers the risk of clade I virus to the general U.S. population to be low. The agency says the risk to “U.S. men who have sex with men with more than one sexual partner, and their partners” is low to moderate.

    A prior international emergency — the COVID-19 pandemic — looms large in people’s memories. But there are many differences between mpox and COVID-19.

    For one thing, COVID-19 is a respiratory virus that spreads through the air, whereas mpox spreads via close physical contact and does not readily transmit via the air.

    The virus that causes COVID-19 “was transmitting very rapidly through respiratory transmission and through shared air spaces, and that was having very rapid effects in expansion across the globe, extremely, extremely quickly,” Kindrachuk said. “Monkeypox virus, all through the 54 years we have been studying that, has had that opportunity to move globally in the same way and hasn’t.”

    In 2022, scientists saw the ability of the monkeypox virus to change and expand, Kindrachuk said, but the public health community was able to respond through measures such as vaccines and increased testing capacity and health care knowledge.

    And the world is now in a “very different place” when it comes to the ability to spot mpox cases globally, he said, as indicated by the rapid detection of isolated cases of clade Ib mpox in travelers in Sweden and Thailand, rather than a delayed discovery of broader spread. There are also existing vaccine programs. Those factors “are working certainly in favor at keeping the virus suppressed from moving out to a much larger global pandemic situation, but that’s a very different situation than what we see in Africa right now,” he said.

    “This is an outbreak that can be controlled if we quickly scale up and focus on the countries that are affected,” Kuppalli said.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source