Category: Fact Check

President Joe Biden said Republicans intend to chop Social Security.

“Their plan would cut Social Security benefits,” Biden said Nov. 27 during a White House event. “I thought (Republicans) agreed not to do this a couple times. But they’re back at it. Average benefit cut would be 13%.”

Almost 67 million Americans this year will receive Social Security payments, totaling about $1 trillion. Many older Americans rely on the benefits to pay their basic living expenses. People can start receiving Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, but full benefits kick in when they turn 67. 

Social Security is funded through the payroll tax; that revenue is put into trust funds to pay for current beneficiaries. These trust funds could be depleted as early as 2032 if further action is not taken. That could mean that in about a decade, monthly checks could be reduced by about 23%.

But because of its widespread support among older Americans — who usually have the highest voter turnout — Social Security has long been known as the “third rail of politics.” Many politicians in both parties are reluctant to broach major structural changes. 

In his 2023 State of the Union address, Biden seemed to cow Republican lawmakers in the audience into pledging not to cut benefits. That nationally televised faceoff set the table for Biden’s criticism on Nov. 27.

The White House told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to a budget proposed in June by the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservatives in the House GOP.

That proposal opens the door to Social Security cuts, but its effects are far less clear or specific than Biden portrayed. Republicans said it would not affect people who are near retirement or have retired, which Biden left out. He also omitted important context about what could happen to Social Security under his own plan.

The Republican Study Committee did not answer an inquiry for this article.

What the Republican Study Committee proposed

In its 167-page fiscal year 2024 budget proposal, the Republican Study Committee backed some changes to Social Security’s structure that it said would preserve the program’s fiscal health.

The group said it would “make modest changes” in the benefit formula for “individuals who are not near retirement” and are on the income scale’s higher end. It also said it would make “modest adjustments” to the retirement age for full benefits “to account for increases in life expectancy.” And the budget said it would phase out “auxiliary benefits” for high earners.

Would the proposal “cut Social Security benefits,” as Biden said?

The proposal would cut benefits, at least for some people. 

In its proposed budget, the Republican Study Committee emphasized that its proposal “does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement,” and Biden did not repeat this caveat.

However, the flip side of the group’s pledge is that younger Americans would see reductions under the group’s plan.

In an analysis of the proposal for PolitiFact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — a fiscally hawkish group that tracks budget matters — said it is “generally true that an increase in the full retirement age is roughly equivalent to an across-the-board cut in benefits.” 

For instance, if people want to retire at 67, but the age for receiving full benefits is raised to 69, they can still choose to retire at 67, but if they do, they will have to accept a lower monthly payment than before the age was raised.

Future beneficiaries’ payments could be cut further depending on their income and other factors.

Would the “average benefit cut” be 13%, as Biden said?

Biden’s 13% figure is speculative, but plausible.

The White House told PolitiFact that the 13% figure originated in a table the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities published.

In the table, raising the retirement age from 67 to 69 would reduce an “illustrative monthly benefit” from $1,000 to $867, which is a 13.3% cut.

The paper was last updated in 2020, but Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said the math it uses is “still applicable.”

However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget urged caution.

“There both isn’t enough detail to say what the full (Republican Study Committee) plan is, and there also isn’t a comprehensive assessment of the full plan to say what the average cut would or wouldn’t be,” the group told PolitiFact.

Is this the Republican plan, as Biden suggested?

Whether this can be characterized as the Republican plan is more debatable.

The Republican Study Committee’s membership includes about 80% of the House Republican Conference, which holds a narrow majority in the chamber. But this doesn’t mean the Republican Study Committee’s plan is an official plan for all Republicans — nor would it be a slam dunk to pass.

It’s one proposal from one faction, albeit a sizable one, within the House Republican Conference. Given the political sensitivity of Social Security and that one-fifth of House Republicans aren’t bound by the Republican Study Committee’s plan, it could face trouble on the floor, if it gets that far.

Also, Democrats control the Senate narrowly, and it’s not clear that the Republican minority in the chamber would close ranks behind such a plan.

What is Biden leaving out?

In contrast to the changes the Republican Study Committee envisions, the White House in February said Biden would “commit to taking cuts to Social Security … off the table.” 

A status quo approach like this, however, would also lead to significant benefit cuts if nothing changes.

This is a point the Republican Study Committee makes repeatedly in its proposal, describing the prospect of what it calls “Biden’s 23% across-the-board cuts” “devastating.” That figure stems from projections by the trust funds’ trustees. 

“As President Biden criticizes proposals that would prolong the life of the Social Security trust fund, his current approach of doing nothing would lead to 23% benefit cuts for all participants, including current seniors,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We are running out of time, and serious leaders should offer their own solutions, not try to score cheap political points against those who do.”

Our ruling

Biden said of Republicans, “Their plan would cut Social Security benefits. … Average benefit cut would be 13%.”

A Republican Study Committee proposal from June would result in cuts to beneficiaries from a combination of a higher retirement age and formula changes, though the proposal said current retirees and those nearing retirement age would be exempted. Experts found the 13% cut Biden cited to be speculative, but plausible — but there isn’t enough detail to really know.

Also, this is one Republican faction’s plan, not something universally adopted by the party, and it’s far from guaranteed to be passed in the House, let alone in the Senate. And Biden’s framing also ignores that his own policy, which is essentially to continue the status quo, threatens even bigger across-the-board reductions by the early 2030s.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis have long feuded over which state has the most freedoms and protections. Both are set to debate Nov. 30 on Fox News.

Newsom recently said on X, formerly Twitter, that some women who have abortions in Florida, and the doctors who perform the procedure, could be jailed.

“Any woman who has an abortion after six weeks — and any doctor who gives her care — will be guilty of a felony. Abortion after six weeks will be punishable by up to 5 years in prison,” Newsom posted on X Nov. 19. “That’s not freedom. That’s Ron DeSantis’ Florida.”

Newsom also shared an ad by his political action committee, Campaign for Democracy, that shows a “wanted” billboard and mug shots of women and people in white lab coats who appear to be physicians.

Newsom narrates the ad and says: “Wanted, by order of Governor Ron DeSantis: Any woman who has an abortion after six weeks and any doctor who gives her care will be guilty of a felony. Abortion after six weeks will be punishable by up to five years in prison.”

In April, DeSantis approved a bill that said anyone who “actively participates in” an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy commits a felony. That law would take effect if the Florida Supreme Court upholds a related 2022 law.

But who the felony charge applies to is up for debate. Although the 2023 law is clear that physicians can be charged, whether pregnant women will face the same charge is ambiguous. 

DeSantis has said he does not want to jail women who have abortions.

Florida law says actively participating in an abortion is a felony

Nathan Click, Newsom’s political adviser, cited as evidence Florida’s 2023 “Heartbeat Protection Act.” That law says physicians may not perform most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. A subsequent section on penalties says that “any person who willfully performs, or actively participates in, a termination of pregnancy” commits a felony of the third degree. 

That charge carries up to five years in prison.

The penalty language regarding someone who “participates in” an abortion was carried over to the 2023 law from a 1990s law.

Florida Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to modify the law to say that it does not apply to pregnant women who terminate their pregnancies.

Law professors told PolitiFact that if lawmakers wanted only physicians to be charged, they could have specified that in the law.

“I don’t think statute or case law or anything else gives you a clear answer” on whether the law punishes women or just people helping them with an abortion, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor and expert on abortion law at University of California, Davis.

The law “doesn’t rule out women being prosecuted, even if it doesn’t explicitly say they will or won’t be,” Ziegler said.

The phrases “any person” and “actively participates” would leave the matter open for any local law enforcement’s discretion, Georgetown law professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin said.

DeSantis in a September CBS News interview said the penalties in the 2023 law are for the medical practitioners, not the pregnant women, his campaign told PolitiFact.

Nationwide, some Republican lawmakers have supported bills that punish women with prison time for abortions, but this is not a widely embraced idea throughout the anti-abortion movement.

State court in 1997 said women can’t be criminally liable for abortions

DeSantis’ office told PolitiFact that when DeSantis says the penalties won’t apply to women, he’s referring to a 1997 Florida Supreme Court case, State v. Ashley, about a pregnant teenager who shot herself, leading to her baby’s death 15 days later.

Authorities charged the teen with murder, but the court said she shouldn’t have been charged, because state law did not criminalize her conduct. The court cited past rulings that said women who had abortions were the “victim,” not the offender.

DeSantis spokesperson Jeremy Redfern said that the “Florida Supreme Court precedent has affirmed the longstanding common law doctrine preventing a pregnant woman from being held criminally liable for receiving an abortion.”

But law professors say we can’t conclude that the current Florida Supreme Court will take the same stance from decades ago, given nationwide changes in abortion law.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion access federally. The Florida Supreme Court could soon rule in favor of the 15-week limit, which would contradict earlier rulings that protected abortion rights. DeSantis appointed five of the seven justices.

“If the current Florida Supreme Court is willing to overrule precedent on whether the Florida Constitution protects the right to abortion, it may be willing to overrule precedent on whether ambiguous abortion bans cover the pregnant person as well,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, a University of Miami School of Law professor.

What we are left with here is “a lot of TBD,” said Ziegler.

Our ruling

Newsom claimed that in Florida, “any woman who has an abortion after six weeks — and any doctor who gives her care — will be guilty of a felony.”

DeSantis signed a bill banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The 2023 law says that anyone who “actively participates in” an abortion commits a third-degree felony.

The law penalizes physicians. The question is whether it would allow for criminalizing women for their abortions. The ad makes it sound like that is settled. It’s not.

Legal experts say the law’s vague language opens the door to prosecutors charging women, but we don’t yet know whether they will and how courts would respond to such charges. The law is on hold amid legal challenges.

Also, DeSantis has said that he doesn’t want women prosecuted, only the doctors. 

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

RELATED: Ron DeSantis’ False claim that some states allow ‘post-birth’ abortions. None do. 

RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working?

As California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis prepare to debate on Fox News, many factors separate their two states, including their ideological leanings and their voting patterns. 

The Nov. 30 debate between Newsom, a Democrat, and DeSantis, a Republican, is being billed as a blue state versus red state battle in an era of partisan polarization.

A big comparison — and a topic that will likely arise during the debate — is the economic performance of California, the nation’s most populous state, and Florida, the third most populous.

We looked at key economic comparisons between the two states. Florida has performed better on some important economic statistics, such as employment and gross domestic product. California fares better on wages, income and poverty.

Here’s a closer look.

Employment

DeSantis likes to tout how his actions during the coronavirus pandemic — such as opening the state to economic activity despite the health risk — positioned his state for a quick rebound from the pandemic recession.

Florida was in the top one-third of states for COVID-19 death rates with 112 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

California — which took a more cautious approach to reopening during the pandemic and ranked around the midpoint among states in COVID-19 death rates — has largely tracked the U.S. as a whole in its jobs comeback. But Florida has fared significantly better. 

Today, California has 4.8% more jobs than it did in January 2019, the month Newsom and DeSantis took office. But Florida has 10.6% more jobs than in January 2019.

“Keeping businesses open and allowing people to work was certainly helpful (to Florida),” said Randall G. Holcombe, a Florida State University economist.

Florida’s unemployment rate has also been lower than the national rate since January 2019; California’s has been higher.

Florida also performed better in gross domestic product — the sum total of all economic activity within the state. Adjusted for inflation, both states’ GDPs rose faster than the national GDP, but Florida outpaced California. Florida’s GDP is  now 14.2% higher than its January 2019 level, compared with 8.8% higher for California.

Population

DeSantis often touts the population flow into Florida from other states as a major plus. And he often knocks California — for decades the nation’s fastest-growing state for population — for not keeping pace.

Although California remains the more populous state, its share of the nation’s population has stagnated for more than two decades, while Florida’s has risen.

Housing

A big reason for Florida’s recent growth spurt has been its relatively low housing costs. Florida’s housing prices are fairly similar to the national average, but they are well below those in California. This does not include insurance costs, which are rising everywhere but particularly in Florida, given climate threats and losses from hurricanes.

Wages and income

A notable economic shortcoming for Florida involves wages and income. 

Average hourly earnings for private-sector workers in Florida are 6.2% below the national average. The same measure for California is 13.1% higher than the national average.

It’s true even after adjusting for Florida’s lower tax burden; the state’s per capita disposable income — its after-tax income per resident — trails the U.S., while California’s is in the top quarter of states. 

A caveat is that the higher cost of living in California, including those high housing prices, eats into those wage-and-income advantages.

Poverty is less common in California. 

For 2022, California had a 12.2% poverty rate, and 15% for children up to age 18. Both figures were higher in Florida: 12.7% overall and 16.8% for children.

Finally, California retains an edge in high-paying “knowledge industry” sectors, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

As The New York Times has reported, California leads Florida in the share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (37% to 34.3%), the number of universities ranked in the top 50 for research and development funding (7 to 1). and patents issued per 10,000 residents (12.8 to 2.6).

Florida fared as well or better than California on math test scores for fourth graders and eighth graders, the Times reported.

Un carro que iba a velocidad se estrelló y encendió en llamas cerca de la frontera entre Canadá y Estados Unidos y dejó a dos personas muertas y otra herida. 

El accidente en el puente Rainbow cerca de Niagara Falls en Nueva York dejó una escena espeluznante, pero este no está relacionado a un ataque terrorista islamico. 

“Ataque terrorista islamico confirmado cerca de la frontera con Canadá en el puente del Arco Iris en las Cataratas del Niágara”, dice la publicación en Facebook del 22 de noviembre. 

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

Screenshot de Facebook

Publicaciones similares también fueron compartidas en TikTok. “Acaba de ocurrir un atentado terrorista en la frontera de Canadá y los Estados Unidos”, dice la publicación del 23 de noviembre. 

Sin embargo, el Buró Federal de Investigaciones de Estados Unidos (FBI, por sus siglas en inglés), dijo que el accidente automovilístico no tiene vínculo a actividad terrorista. 

En una declaración del 22 de noviembre, la oficina del FBI en Buffalo, Nueva York, dijo, “Una búsqueda en la escena no reveló materiales explosivos, y ningún nexo terrorista fue identificado. El caso fue entregado al Departamento de Policía de las Cataratas del Niágara como una investigación de tránsito”. 

El accidente sucedió alrededor de las 11:30 a.m. hora del este, el 22 de noviembre. Una corresponsal de Fox News inicialmente publicó en X que una fuente no nombrada dijo que fue un intento de ataque terrorista y que el carro estaba lleno de explosivos. 

La corresponsal de Fox News luego clarificó, “Fuentes policiales de alto nivel dicen que técnicos de bombas en la escena inmediatamente alertaron a todas las autoridades de que esto fue un intento de ataque terrorista porque nunca antes habían visto una explosión con un campo de residuos como ese y creyeron que habían varios explosivos en el carro”.

A las 1:41 p.m., hora del este, la gobernadora de Nueva York, Kathy Hochul, público en X que ella había mandado a la Policía del Estado de Nueva York y el Grupo de Trabajo Conjunto contra el Terrorismo del FBI a monitorear todos los puntos de entrada a Nueva York.

Luego en una conferencia de prensa alrededor de las 5 p.m. el mismo día, Hochul dijo, “No hay señales de actividad terrorista con respecto a este accidente”.

Las personas que murieron en el accidente fueron identificadas como Kurt P. Villani y Monica Villani, una pareja casada dueños de negocios en el oeste de Nueva York. Las autoridades dijeron que ellos se dirigían a un concierto en Toronto.

El carro era un 2022 Bentley Flying Spur, un modelo ultra lujoso que podía alcanzar las 60 millas por hora en 4 segundos. The New York Times reportó que los investigadores están considerando si una falla mecánica pudo haber causado que el carro acelerara.  

Calificamos la declaración de que un ataque terrorista islámico fue confirmado en el puente Rainbow como Falsa.

Este artículo originalmente fue escrito en inglés y traducido por Maria Briceño.

Read a version of this fact-check in English.

Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

__________________________________________________________________________

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

 

Un video en Facebook dice que la industria alimenticia quiere que la gente coma lechuga posiblemente dañina para la salud.

“La industria alimentaria quiere que comas esto!”, dice la publicación del 23 de noviembre. El video muestra a una persona echando una sustancia verde en agua, estirándola y dándole forma de lechuga. 

El subtítulo dice: “A veces la lechuga puede no serlo y es un plástico sintético sin nutrición y lleno de contaminantes”.

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

El video muestra la creación de lechugas sintéticas, pero estas no son para el consumo humano. 

Newtral, un medio de comunicación en España que verifica hechos, reportó en 2014 que en la ciudad de Gujo, Japón, usan tecnología para hacer muestras de comida ultra realista. Estas muestras — las cuales pueden ser hechas con plástico, cera u otros materiales — son usadas para ilustrar las opciones de comida en los menús de restaurantes japoneses. 

BuzzFeed News también reportó en 2016 que extranjeros en Japón no acostumbrados a ver muestras falsas generaron una teoría conspirativa sobre el uso de las muestras. Sin embargo,  es común que restaurantes japoneses muestren comida falsa para ayudar a las personas a escoger su orden.

Nuestro veredicto

Un video en Facebook dice que “la industria alimentaria quiere que comas” lechuga de plástico sintético sin nutrición y lleno de contaminantes.

Las lechugas falsas en el video no son para el consumo humano. El video enseña a una persona creando una muestra de la comida servida en restaurantes japoneses. En Japón, es común que los restaurantes exhiban comida falsa para ayudar a las personas a escoger su orden.

Calificamos la publicación como Falsa. 

Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

_______________________________________________

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

COVID-19 vaccine skeptics for three years now have baselessly claimed that blood donated by vaccine recipients is unsafe.

Some patients have asked their doctors to use blood from unvaccinated donors — a tough task in the U.S., where 81% of Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 

Despite repeated assurances from health officials that blood donated by vaccinated people poses no health risk, the claims persist on social media.

“You’re. In. Danger,” a Nov. 25 Instagram post’s caption read. It shared a screenshot of a Sept. 13, 2022, American Red Cross X post that said, “We don’t label blood products as containing vaccinated or unvaccinated blood as the COVID-19 vaccine does not enter the bloodstream & poses no safety risks to the recipient.”

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

American Red Cross spokesperson Daniel Parra told PolitiFact, “Blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are safe for transfusion.”

Like other vaccines, including for influenza, Parra said, the COVID-19 vaccines are designed to generate an immune response. “Vaccine components themselves are not found within the bloodstream,” he said.

Parra said all U.S. blood collectors follow eligibility guidelines set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

In a Nov. 27 statement to PolitiFact, the FDA said it “takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure the safety of the nation’s blood supply” and pointed us to guidance it issued in 2022 about COVID-19 and blood donation.

The FDA hasn’t required or recommended delays in blood donations of people after they received COVID-19 vaccines, the statement said. The FDA’s statement added that there’s “no medical or scientific” justification for seeking donations from only unvaccinated people.

Nevertheless, the false narrative has fueled the creation of anti-vaccine networks in which people can seek blood supposedly donated by unvaccinated people. In October, an FDA advisory said directed blood donation requests “lack scientific support” and urged people to “be cautious about websites that offer memberships” for blood “from individuals who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.”

In January, the American Red Cross also issued a joint statement with America’s Blood Centers and the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies reiterating the safety of blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated people.

“COVID-19 vaccines do not replicate, and all blood donations offer the same life-saving therapeutic benefits, regardless of the vaccination status of the donor,” the statement said.

The claim that blood transfusions from donors who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 endanger recipients has no basis in science, health experts said. We rate the claim False.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., recently shared footage of himself dressed in formal attire, telling an audience that the United States has never sought land after winning wars.

McCarthy uploaded his posts on X and YouTube on Nov. 26, about a month after he made his remarks at the Oxford Union, the 200-year-old debating society at the University of Oxford in England. The debate, which addressed the value of U.S. intervention around the world, also featured Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., and Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

McCarthy said at the Oct. 28 event, “In every single war that America has fought, we have never asked for land afterwards, except for enough to bury the Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for that freedom we went in for.”

His post on X, formerly Twitter, drew criticism from commenters, who said McCarthy was ignoring multiple examples in which the United States had taken control of new territory following warfare. The post drew a community note that concurred with the critics’ argument. (Community notes, written by X users, are designed to provide additional context to claims made on the platform.)

Multiple historians told PolitiFact that McCarthy’s comment was historically inaccurate.

“You could quibble in some cases over whether we ‘asked’ for land and whether ‘ceding’ or ‘annexing’ is the same as taking,” said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University. “But if the question is whether McCarthy was incorrect, it’s easy: He is.”

An email inquiry to McCarthy’s press staff was not returned.

Examples of U.S. land gains

The community note on X cited three examples, and historians told PolitiFact that each offered a valid counterpoint to McCarthy’s assertion:

• United States-Mexico war, 1848: Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded 55% of its territory, including the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.

• Spanish-American War, 1898: Under the Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished claims on Cuba and ceded Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States. Guam and Puerto Rico remain U.S. territories; the Philippines won independence in 1946.

• Second Samoan Civil War, 1899: Under the Tripartite Convention of 1899, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States divided up the Samoan island chain in the Pacific Ocean. The portion the U.S. took is now a U.S. territory, American Samoa.

Historians offered other examples. 

• Wars against Native Americans: Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. government continually pushed Native Americans off their land and allowed settlement by white people in the newly vacated territory. This push included many military conflicts, including the Seminole wars, the Sand Creek Massacre, the Battle of Little Bighorn and the Wounded Knee Massacre.

The Battle of Paceo, Manila, during the Philippine War, Feb, 4-5, 1899. (Library of Congress; public domain)

• The Philippines: The fighting did not end after the U.S. defeated Spain in 1898. After that war, members of a Filipino independence movement shifted from fighting Spain to fighting the United States.

“It was a brutal affair that the United States won,” said Joseph McCallus, an English professor at Columbus State University who has authored several books on the Philippines, including “Forgotten Under a Tropical Sun: War Stories by American Veterans in the Philippines, 1898-1913.”

Officially, this second war lasted from 1899 to 1902, he said, but Filipino guerrillas fought on for several years afterward. “With the Filipino independence forces defeated, the United States took control of the entire Philippine archipelago,” McCallus said. “In no uncertain terms, it was an unadulterated land grab. Its purpose was to position the United States in the Pacific.”

• Panama Canal Zone: In 1903, following years of failed attempts to secure a path for a canal across Central America, President Theodore Roosevelt dispatched U.S. warships to secure independence for Panama from Colombia.

The newly declared nation negotiated the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, providing the United States with a 10-mile wide strip for the canal. In exchange, Panama received a U.S. guarantee of its independence, a $10 million payment and a $250,000 annuity.

The U.S. ceded control of the Canal Zone in 1979, which ceased to exist in October of that year, according to the State Department. Control of the Panama Canal itself was given to Panama in 1999.

U.S. Marines stationed on Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands, after World War II (National Archives; public domain)

• Trust Territory of the Pacific. Hundreds of islands controlled by Japan passed to the U.S. following World War II as a U.S. trusteeship. After increasing sentiment in the islands for greater independence, the United Nations dissolved the arrangement in 1990.

Today, the former trust territory consists of one U.S. territory (the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and three entities that are self-governing but that have granted the U.S. authority over defense (the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau).

Since World War II, the U.S. “hasn’t been as acquisitive,” said David Silbey, a Cornell University historian and co-author of “The Other Face of Battle: America’s Forgotten Wars and the Experience of Combat.” “But that comes after a long history of land conquests.”

Our ruling

McCarthy said, “In every single war that America has fought, we have never asked for land afterwards, except for enough to bury the Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for that freedom we went in for.”

This claim is undercut by two centuries of U.S. history, including the land gains following U.S. wars against Mexico, Spain, Filipino rebels, Japan and Native American tribes. 

We rate the statement Pants on Fire!

Un video en Facebook dice que una niña fue secuestrada en un baño de Disneyland en California en octubre. Pero esta historia no es real, según la policía local y un representante del parque.

La publicación cuenta que unos padres dejaron a su niña ir al baño sola en Disneyland, pero cuando la madre notó que su hija se tardaba, fue a verificar qué pasaba. Y supuestamente vio a un hombre llevandose a su hija por un túnel que se abrió de la nada en el piso del baño. 

“La extraña desaparición de una niña de 4 años dentro de las instalaciones del parque de Disneyland en California”, dice el video del 21 de noviembre.

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

El parque de Disneyland es uno de los dos parques temáticos que se encuentran en el complejo conocido como el Disneyland Resort en Anaheim, California.

Esta historia también se hizo viral en TikTok, pero PolitiFact no encontró evidencia de que una niña fuera secuestrada en el parque en octubre. 

Hicimos una búsqueda en Google e investigamos si los medios de comunicación legítimos reportaron sobre el secuestro, pero no encontramos denuncias oficiales ni reportes sobre el suceso. 

Un portavoz del Departamento de Policía de Anaheim, el departamento encargado de responder a crímenes e investigaciones criminales en el Disneyland Resort, dijo que ellos no fueron llamados sobre un secuestro en el parque.

El Sargento Jon McClintock, un oficial de información pública del Departamento de Policía de Anaheim, le dijo a PolitiFact el 9 de noviembre (cuando verificamos una afirmación similar) que ellos no respondieron a ninguna llamada sobre el secuestro de un niño o niña en el parque. 

PolitiFact los volvió a contactar el 27 de noviembre para verificar si habían emergido detalles o reportes sobre el supuesto caso, pero McClintock dijo que el departamento no está investigando el secuestro de ningún niño o persona perdida en Disneyland Resort.

“Yo he visto estos reportes circulando en Internet. Esos son todos infundados”, dijo McClintock. 

Un portavoz del equipo de relaciones de medios del Disneyland Resort le dijo a PolitiFact que la afirmación en el video es un rumor falso. 

Un video en Facebook dice que una niña de 4 años desapareció en Disneyland en octubre, pero no hay evidencia de que esto haya sucedido. 

Calificamos la publicación como Falsa.

Lea más reportes de PolitiFact en Español aquí.

__________________________________________________________________________

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

A video flashes through numerous scenes. A street in chaos. Former President Donald Trump speaking to members of the military. President Joe Biden stumbling on stairs.

Over them all, a voice resembling Trump’s warns of an impending catastrophe. 

“300 million Americans will die in a matter of weeks,” the voice in the Nov. 15 video said. “Russia and China are plotting something so sinister, something that will destroy our way of life. You wouldn’t believe, it’s a disaster.”

For reference, the U.S. population is currently close to 336 million.

A Nov. 13 video showing a waving American flag contains similar Trump-like narration.

“My trusted military experts tell me that 300 million Americans will perish,” the voice says. “During the first few weeks of this attack. There will be no heat, no food and no water.” Both videos end with the Trump-like voice promoting a documentary about an “imminent and devastating attack on America” made by Teddy Daniels, a Republican and Trump-supporter who lost the 2022 Republican primary for Pennsylvania lieutenant governor and has said he was present on U.S. Capitol grounds Jan. 6, 2021.

Screenshot from Facebook

These videos, which we also found in the form of sponsored ads, were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The posts link to a video uploaded by loomingblackout.com.

We also spotted a similar but longer video posted Nov. 9.

We conducted searches on Google and Nexis, a research service that tracks news articles and transcripts, and found no reports of or statements by Trump warning that 300 million Americans would die in an impending disaster. We did not find any published evidence that Trump has mentioned Daniels’ documentary, either.

Daniels did not respond to our inquiry. We found no mention of Trump promoting Daniels’ documentary on Daniels’ social media accounts.

Meta’s ad library showed that The Patriot’s Digest paid for ads displaying both videos. According to the disclaimers listed on both ads, they were paid for by Truth Alliance, which appears to be a marketing group. Its website says, “We exist for the purpose of uniting Americans through a variety of brands, platforms and products.”

We reached out to the email address for Truth Alliance listed in the disclaimer but did not hear back. We also tried calling phone numbers associated with The Patriot’s Digest and Truth Alliance. The number listed on The Patriot’s Digest page was “parked,” meaning it was stored with an active service and can be activated when needed. We also reached out to the Trump campaign about the ads but received no response.

Truth Alliance paid $700 to $799 for one video and $300 to $399 for the other, according to the ad library. The videos gained 50,000 to 60,000 impressions collectively, as of Nov. 28. Impressions measure the number of times an ad was on a screen. 

The Patriot’s Digest shared another active ad using a Trump-like voice that said words nearly identical to the speech in the Nov. 15 video. This ad cost less than $100 and gained 7,000 to 8,000 impressions.

We’ve seen Trump’s voice generated using artificial intelligence for an ad before, that time by a pro-DeSantis political action committee. Digital forensics experts said voices can be easily fabricated using text-to-speech systems.

Could that be the case in these ominous videos? It’s not clear.

In the videos shared on Facebook, Trump’s supposed voice keeps what sounds like a more automated cadence than the way we hear him naturally speaking. But AI-detection programs did not clearly pick up evidence of that alteration, experts told us.

Siwei Lyu, a University at Buffalo computer science and engineering professor, ran the audio tracks through two analysis algorithms and found “weak or no signs of AI synthesis or manipulation.” Lyu told PolitiFact it could be an imposter’s real voice. 

Hany Farid, electrical engineering and computer sciences professor at the University of California, Berkeley, also analyzed the audio tracks using a model that distinguishes between real and AI-generated voice created by ElevenLabs, a text-to-speech tool. Farid said, “Our model does not flag this audio as being generated by ElevenLabs, but there are several other AI voice generators that could have been used.” He also pointed out that the “fairly regular cadence” in the audio is consistent with AI-generated voice outputs.

We did not find published evidence that Trump has promoted a documentary about an impending catastrophe affecting 300 million Americans, nor did we find that he has warned of such a scenario elsewhere. 

At PolitiFact, the burden of proof is on the speaker. In the absence of proof, we rate the claim that this audio shows Trump warned of a catastrophe that would kill 300 million Americans “in a matter of weeks” False.

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.