Category: Fact Check

  • Fact Check: Fact check: West Virginia, not New Hampshire, ranks first in fatal drug overdoses

    Former President Donald Trump claimed during a New Hampshire rally that the state has an unexplained drug problem. But his claim hinges on outdated data.

    “I don’t understand New Hampshire for whatever reason, you have a worse drug problem per capita than any other state,” Trump said during a Nov. 11 rally in Claremont. “Nobody’s explained that.”

    Trump didn’t define what he meant by “worse drug problem,” but he also praised the fire and police departments for “saving people from overdoses.”

    Trump’s campaign did not answer PolitiFact’s question on whether he was referring to overdose deaths, an often used metric, or something else.

    But Trump’s assessment isn’t supported by federal fatal overdose data.

    West Virginia, not New Hampshire, tops nation in per capita drug overdoses

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gathers data from states showing how many people die annually from drug overdoses. The most recent final data is for 2021.

    That year, West Virginia had the highest per capita drug overdose death rate, with 90.9 deaths per 100,000 population. New Hampshire’s per capita death rate was 32.3, placing it at No. 23 among all states. CDC’s provisional 2022 data shows that New Hampshire ranked similarly and West Virginia remained first.

    But even with New Hampshire ranking in the middle of the nation, there is cause for concern: drug overdose deaths have been rising. There were 487 drug overdose deaths in 2022, an 11% increase from 2021.

    New Hampshire officials found that the majority of the 2022 deaths were linked to overdoses from fentanyl (a potent synthetic opioid), or fentanyl with other drugs. 

    The CDC national data says that in 2021 most drug overdose deaths involved opioids; and New Hampshire placed in the middle again for deaths involving only opioids.

    New Hampshire’s per capita ranking has been worse in the past. From 2014 to 2016, the state’s per capita death rate was in the top two or top three among all states.

    “New Hampshire was one of the first states seriously affected by fentanyl,” said Peter Reuter, a University of Maryland public policy analyst and professor. Yet its death rates have remained constant while the rates of other states, such as Ohio and West Virginia, have soared, he said.

    In the same New Hampshire speech, Trump said drug dealers should be given the death penalty. But experts say that the death penalty would not wipe out addiction.

    The death penalty will not result in many executions; the courts have been very resistant to such penalties, Reuter said. “If Mr. Trump means much harsher penalties, we ran that experiment in the 1980s and 1990s,” Reuter said. “It did not noticeably reduce the national drug problem.”

    Our ruling

    Trump said that New Hampshire has “a worse drug problem per capita than any other state.” 

    Trump didn’t provide evidence for his statement. CDC data on fatal drug overdoses shows that West Virginia is the state with the highest per capita death rate. New Hampshire ranks toward the middle of the 50 states.

    New Hampshire years ago ranked second or third in terms of per capita fatal overdoses. But Trump’s recent statement overreaches.

    We rate his claim False. 

    RELATED: Fact-check: What Trump said about ‘$6 billion to Iran,’ immigration, economy at New Hampshire rally

    RELATED: Common myths about fentanyl debunked: No, you can’t accidentally overdose by touching fentanyl

    RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Do rising fentanyl seizures at the border signal better detection or more drugs?



    Source

  • Fact Check: Ramaswamy misses details in debate story about DeSantis donor, Florida anti-China land law

    MIAMI — Defending his record on his home turf, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis touted a new state law on China during the third Republican presidential debate. 

    “In Florida, I banned China from buying land in this state … and we kicked the Confucius Institutes out of our universities,” DeSantis said to applause, referring to Chinese government-funded nonprofits that promote Chinese language and culture. “We recognized the threat, and we’ve acted swiftly and decisively. “

    Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy said this wasn’t the whole story. 

    “What you left out, though, Ron, and be honest about it, there was a lobbying-based exemption in that bill that allowed Chinese nationals to buy land within a 20-mile radius of a military base, lobbied for by one of your donors,” Ramaswamy said in the Nov. 8 debate.

    “That’s not true,” DeSantis replied.

    PolitiFact wanted to sort out the cross talk and figure out who was right. Was a law restricting land purchases by Chinese nationals loosened to appease a DeSantis donor?

    PolitiFact reached out to Ramaswamy’s campaign but did not hear back. 

    DeSantis’ governor’s office pointed us to a Nov. 8 post on X by spokesperson Jeremy Redfern, who shared a map that highlighted the entire state of Florida, writing, “The area highlighted on this map is where the CCP cannot buy land in Florida.” (CCP refers to the “Chinese Communist Party.”) 

    What we know about the Florida law 

    Senate Bill 264 restricts many Chinese citizens from buying real estate in Florida. DeSantis signed the bill in May after it passed the Florida Legislature, and it became law in July. 

    The law restricts citizens of seven foreign “countries of concern” — China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria and Venezuela — from owning or buying land in Florida. The law’s final version says they cannot buy property within 10 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure, such as ports, airports and power substations. Property buyers or sellers who violate the restriction could face up to 60 days in prison and a $500 fine.

    A portion of the law targets people associated with the Chinese government as well as Chinese citizens who aren’t permanent U.S. residents and who say their primary residence is in China. It prohibits these people from buying any property in Florida.

    Sellers who knowingly violate this part of the law could face up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine; Chinese nationals could face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

    The law includes an exception for people who have nontourist visas or have been granted asylum. These people may buy “one residential property up to two acres” that isn’t on or within 5 miles of a military installation.

    The measure also requires American citizens who aim to buy Florida property to sign an affidavit attesting they aren’t prevented from purchasing the real estate under the new law.

    How the law changed to benefit a past DeSantis donor

    Early versions of the legislation were tighter. As filed, the bill would have essentially barred Chinese citizens and foreign nationals from the six other countries from buying any real estate within 20 miles of military bases and critical infrastructure.

    That would have covered most of South Florida. 

    This earlier bill created complications for Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel, a hedge fund and financial services company. Griffin plans to build a new Citadel headquarters in Miami. Because he employs many international workers, he worried the law would prohibit them from buying property in the area, Bloomberg News reported in August.

    The story detailed how Griffin assembled a network of people to rework the proposed law and narrow restrictions for people with work permits. Citadel hired Capital City Consulting, one of Florida’s top lobbying and public affairs companies, to help secure changes.

    Citadel confirmed Bloomberg News’ reporting with PolitiFact. 

    The version that became law cuts the restricted area for residential property purchases to 5 miles from military bases for verified visa holders and asylees.

    Griffin’s support for DeSantis has changed 

    Griffin, who moved to Florida from Illinois in 2022, donated $5 million in 2021 to a political action committee that backed DeSantis’ reelection campaign, campaign finance records show. But he hasn’t given money to support DeSantis’ presidential run. 

    There is friction in the relationship. Griffin in September told CNBC he wasn’t backing DeSantis in the race and was remaining on the sidelines of the GOP presidential primary, adding that DeSantis was leading a “pointless” fight with The Walt Disney Co.

    “Florida is defined by its promise of freedom and economic opportunity, and our State government must continue to reflect and uphold these ideals,” Griffin said in an emailed statement to PolitiFact. 

    “We support the freedom of individuals who are lawfully working in the U.S. to purchase homes and we will continue to advocate for those rights.”

    Legal challenges to the law

    The U.S. Justice Department has argued that the Florida law is unconstitutional. News reports have documented how prospective buyers are backing out of home deals, and some real estate brokers have said they feel forced to racially profile people and turn down business, NBC News reported. 

    The American Civil Liberties Union is representing four Chinese citizens who live in Florida and a real estate company that serves Chinese and Chinese American clients in a lawsuit against the state, which was filed in May. The ACLU argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates the plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection and procedural due process.

    “They will be forced to cancel purchases of new homes, register their existing properties with the State under threat of severe penalties, and face the loss of significant business,” the complaint said. “The law stigmatizes them and their communities, and casts a cloud of suspicion over anyone of Chinese descent who seeks to buy property in Florida.”

    The lawsuit describes the exception for those with nontourist visas or asylees as “incredibly narrow.” 

    There are more than 20 military bases in Florida, many within 5 miles of city centers including Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Pensacola and Panama City.

    Many other states have enacted laws to regulate Chinese nationals’ property purchases, , including Alabama, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia. At least 20 more states have introduced similar bills that would regulate or restrict foreign ownership of real estate. Florida’s law is considered one of the strictest.

    Our ruling

    Ramaswamy said Florida’s anti-Chinese land law has an exemption that “allowed Chinese nationals to buy land within a 20-mile radius of a military base” lobbied for by one of DeSantis’ donors. 

    A wealthy businessman and generous donor to DeSantis’ gubernatorial reelection campaign successfully lobbied for looser restrictions on land purchases to benefit his international employees with work permits. 

    But Ramaswamy missed some details. First, the man has not supported DeSantis’ presidential campaign. Also, people associated with the Chinese Communist Party, or Chinese citizens who say their primary residence is in China, are not permitted to buy any Florida land.

    The law separately restricts non-U.S. citizens from “foreign countries of concern,” which includes China, from buying real estate in Florida within 10 miles of a military base or critical infrastructure site. If foreign buyers qualify for an exception, they can purchase “one residential property up to two acres” that is outside of a 5-mile radius of military bases.

    The distance rule was reduced from the original version, which blocked purchases within a 20-mile radius of military installations and critical infrastructure sites.

    Ramaswamy’s claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: Marianne Williamson correct that U.S. is world’s biggest arms exporter

    In a recent appearance in New Hampshire, Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson said the U.S. is the world’s biggest arms exporter and sells widely to autocratic countries.

    “So, when you look at most American aid over the last few decades, what do we mean by American aid to other countries?” Williamson said at a Nov. 7 event at a store in Manchester, New Hampshire. “The vast majority of it is military aid. And we sell arms to 60% of the world’s autocrats. We are the world’s largest arms exporters.” The comments were captured by PolitiFact’s partner, WMUR-TV in New Hampshire.

    She’s correct about the U.S. being the world’s largest arms exporter, and that the U.S. sells heavily to autocratic governments. (We are checking her statement about military aid as a share of U.S. foreign aid separately.)

    Arms exports

    In the breadth of its arms exports, the U.S. leads every other country.

    Data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that from 2018 to 2022, the U.S. accounted for 40% of arms transfers globally. The next closest country was Russia, at 16%.

    The U.S. share has been climbing. From 2013 to 2017, the U.S. accounted for 33% of global arms transfers. The three biggest importers of U.S. arms are Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia.

    Williamson said 60% of the military aid goes to the world’s autocrats, which appears to come from reporting in The Intercept, a left-leaning online publication. In May, it published a story that used federal data to calculate that, in 2022, the U.S. sold weapons to at least 57% of the world’s autocratic countries.

    For its definitions, it relied on the Varieties of Democracy project at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, which classifies regimes in four categories: closed autocracy, electoral autocracy, electoral democracy, and liberal democracy. The Intercept found that of the 84 nations categorized as autocracies in 2022, the United States sold weapons to 57%. Among the biggest autocratic importers of U.S. arms in recent years have been Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar.

    Using another classification system, the Freedom in the World report published by the human rights group Freedom House, produced a nearly identical result of 58%.

    Our ruling

    Williamson said, “We sell arms to 60% of the world’s autocrats. We are the world’s largest arms exporters.”

    The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter, with 40% of the global share, easily ahead of Russia at 16%.

    We rate the statement True.



    Source

  • Fact Check: US military aid isn’t the majority of foreign assistance, contrary to what Marianne Williamson said

    Does most of U.S. aid to foreign countries consist of military assistance? That’s what Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson said during a Nov. 7 town hall at a store in Manchester, New Hampshire.

    “So, when you look at most American aid over the last few decades, what do we mean by American aid to other countries?” Williamson said, in remarks captured by PolitiFact’s partner, WMUR-TV in New Hampshire. “The vast majority of it is military aid. And we sell arms to 60% of the world’s autocrats. We are the world’s largest arms exporters.”

    In reality, official federal data shows that U.S. military aid accounts for a minority of overall U.S. foreign aid. (We are checking the portion about arms exports separately.)

    Military vs. economic assistance

    U.S. military aid is defined as equipment, training and other defense-related services to national-level security forces of U.S. allies and partners. 

    The ForeignAid.gov website, a project of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, tracks U.S. foreign aid to every country, including the breakdown between economic and military aid. This source is the official one for such breakdowns, said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    It shows that for the most recent full year, 2022, the U.S. provided about $60 billion in economic aid and about $8.9 billion in military aid. That means about 13% of total aid was military aid.

    That was a smaller percentage for military aid than in other recent years; for instance in 2011, military aid accounted for about 38% of all foreign aid.

    Still, at no point in this century has military aid accounted for a majority of all U.S. foreign aid. 

    Our ruling

    Williamson said that looking at “American aid to other countries … the vast majority of it is military aid.”

    In 2022, military aid accounted for about 13% of overall U.S. foreign aid, and in this century, even at its peak, military aid has accounted for less than 40% of overall foreign aid.

    We rate the statement False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Does Texas really outproduce California in wind energy? Yes

    U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz wants people to know that Texas — not California — is the country’s top wind energy producer. 

    “We produce a lot more wind energy in Texas than California does,” Cruz said in an interview this month with CNBC’s Last Call. “They produce a lot of hot air, but the wind energy is produced in Texas.”

    Wind turbines are a common sight across Texas, but is Cruz correct that the state — long known for its oil and gas dominance — outproduces California in renewable wind energy?

    Contacted for comment, Cruz’s spokesperson did not provide a response by our deadline. 

    PolitiFact examined U.S. Energy Information Administration data and found that Texas not only produces more wind energy than California but also is the nation’s top producer. Texas generated more than one-quarter of all U.S. wind-sourced electricity in 2022, leading the country for the 17th consecutive year.

    Last year, Texas produced more than 114,000 megawatt hours of wind energy, nearly eight times more than California, which produced about 14,600 megawatt hours. Texas has more than 15,000 wind turbines, according to the Texas comptroller’s office, more than any other state in the U.S.

    A megawatt can power about 200 homes during peak demand, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the state’s power grid.

    After Texas, the states generating the most wind-sourced electricity in 2022 were Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas and Illinois. 

    Texas leads the nation in wind power generation for several reasons, said Tom Overbye, an engineering professor and director of the Smart Grid Center at Texas A&M University.

    The state boasts extremely high wind speeds, particularly in North and West Texas, and along the southern Gulf Coast, Overbye said. For example, the average peak wind speed in El Paso in West Texas hit 35.9 mph in April 2022, the El Paso Times reported.

    An abundance of open land in these regions makes the cost of developing wind farms relatively low. The state also offers a property tax exemption equal to the value of wind and solar energy devices. 

    Wind farms enjoyed strong bipartisan political support in Texas, at least in their early years, Overbye said. He pointed to the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, which aimed to spur renewable energy development. In 2005, then-Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill that expanded renewable energy and improved the electric transmission infrastructure. Although Democrats have pushed green energy measures, including the Green New Deal, Perry and Bush are both Republicans.

    Texas has also become a leader in solar power, Overbye said. In 2022, Texas was the country’s second-largest solar energy producer, after California, according to the EIA. This year, the state is adding more solar energy capacity than any state in the U.S, according to the agency.

    Our ruling

    Cruz said, “We produce a lot more wind energy in Texas than California does.”  

    Federal data shows that in 2022, Texas produced more wind energy than any other state, including California. That year, Texas produced more than 114,000 megawatt hours of wind energy, compared with California’s production of 14,600 megawatt hours. 

    We rate this claim True. 



    Source

  • Fact Check: What’s behind Republicans’ claim that Joe Biden received $40,000 of ‘laundered Chinese money’?

    Republicans investigating President Joe Biden’s family business dealings have focused on a $40,000 check written to Joe Biden before he was president.

    “BREAKING → @GOPoversight has uncovered a $40,000 payment of laundered Chinese money directly to Joe Biden himself,” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., wrote Nov. 1 on X, formerly Twitter. “Joe Biden isn’t just implicated in his family’s corruption scheme — he’s a key financial beneficiary.”

    This claim comes from a check House Republicans made public on Nov. 1, along with a memorandum of bank records — the fourth memo released during the investigation — that they said “traced payments from Chinese companies to Joe Biden.”

    These bank records show that the money in question appears to have originated with a Chinese business that Biden’s son Hunter had engaged. But the best information we have suggests Scalise overreached by not providing proof of a crime.

    “Money laundering” is a legal term that assumes the money was obtained through illegal means; there’s been no illegal activity shown. The $40,000 came to Joe Biden in a check written by his sister-in-law for what it says was a “loan repayment.” 

    Neither Scalise nor the Republicans’ House Oversight Committee spokesperson responded to PolitiFact’s request for comment. But we dug into Scalise’s claim to learn what is and is not known about the $40,000 payment — the latest piece of evidence Republicans have pointed to in a range of accusations over Biden family finances.

    In September, after years of investigating the Bidens’ foreign business dealings, Republicans opened an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The evidence Republicans have provided so far, including during the impeachment inquiry, has not proved Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing. House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother, James, as part of the inquiry.

    Here’s what we know.

    House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden (right) and Joe Biden’s brother, James (left) as part of their impeachment inquiry. (AP) 

    A $40,000 check to Joe Biden

    The Republicans’ Nov. 1 bank memo outlines a web of transactions that involve a Chinese company, Hunter Biden’s businesses, and Joe Biden’s brother and sister-in-law. The Republicans’ framing is that Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China.

    • On Aug. 8, 2017, Northern International Capital wired $5 million to an account for Hudson West III LLC, a company Hunter Biden formed with a Chinese business associate that aimed to help CEFC, a Chinese energy company, establish liquefied natural gas contracts in the U.S. That $5 million was the only money in the Hudson West III account then. The memo describes Northern International Capital as “a Chinese company affiliated with CEFC.” 

    • Also on Aug. 8, 2017, Hunter Biden wired $400,000 from Hudson West III to Owasco P.C., Hunter Biden’s professional corporation. Owasco P.C. already had $100,000 in it from a wire transfer from CEFC Infrastructure, another company linked to China, bringing the account’s balance to $500,832.

    • On Aug. 14, 2017, Owasco P.C. transferred $150,000 to an account for Lion Hall Group, a consulting company linked to Joe Biden’s brother James. That account’s balance was $151,965.

    • Sara Biden, James Biden’s wife, withdrew $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group bank account on Aug. 28, 2017. That same day, either Sara or James Biden deposited $50,000 into their personal account. Sara Biden also withdrew $1,000 from the personal account, bringing the balance to $49,047 as of Aug. 28, 2017. 

    • On Sept. 3, 2017, Sara Biden signed a $40,000 personal check to Joe Biden. The check’s memo section said it was for “loan repayment.”

    In summary: In 2017, Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China, according to the Republicans’ memo. 

    Available bank records contain no evidence of wrongdoing by the president, nor do they provide evidence that Joe Biden knew where the $40,000 originated.

    “The President, when he was a private citizen, loaned his brother money, and his brother promptly paid him back,” said Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson. Sams said bank records in Republicans’ possession show that the check was repayment for a loan and cited a press release that Oversight Committee Democrats released Oct. 20.

    In it, ranking committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., described the transactions as “personal transactions of the President’s family members that have no relevance to any legitimate congressional inquiry.” 

    PolitiFact reviewed the records for two bank wires, one for $40,000 and one for $200,000, from an account linked to Joe Biden to James Biden. The records were not explicit documentation of outgoing loans. 

    Checks the Oversight Committee released show that James Biden then appeared to repay his brother in full, without interest, within two months of each alleged loan. 

    Republicans also released a $200,000 check Sara and James Biden had written to Joe Biden on March 1, 2018; it also said “loan repayment” on the memo line. But because it was sent the same day Americore Health LLC, a company that manages rural hospitals across the U.S., wired a $200,000 loan to James Biden, Republicans have claimed it proves Joe Biden benefited from his family’s “shady influence peddling of his name.” FactCheck.org covered it here.

    “It’s certainly plausible” that the $40,000 check was a loan repayment, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee’s chair. But even if it were, he said, “it still shows how Joe benefited from his family cashing in on his name — with money from China, no less.”

    On Nov. 1, House Oversight Committee Republicans released this personal check dated Sept. 3, 2017, from Sara Biden to Joe Biden. (House Oversight Committee)

    What is money laundering? 

    By definition, money laundering involves efforts to obscure the source of money that is obtained illegally, according to government agencies, legal sources and experts. 

    “In order to have money laundering, you have to have a predicate crime — an initial crime that creates illegal profits,” said Ross Delston, an attorney who specializes in anti-money laundering. “People throw the term ‘money laundering’ around a lot.”

    A link to China does not mean that money was obtained illegally, Delston said. And unless it’s illegally obtained, it would not be considered money laundering.

    The bank memo Republicans released Nov. 1 included no new information that would prove the money Hunter Biden received from Northern International Capital or CEFC Infrastructure was obtained illegally. 

    Thus far, none of the memos have provided evidence that the money paid to Biden family members and associates was illicitly obtained.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Instagram post inaccurately quotes House Speaker Mike Johnson on workers and abortion

    An Instagram post attributes a dystopian statement about mandatory childbirth to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. 

    “Every woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker,” Johnson is quoted as saying next to his photo and under the words “Are you KIDDING ME?”

    Two liberal Instagram accounts shared the Nov. 12 post. Similar posts, on X, were shared and then fact-checked in early November, but that didn’t stop the spread of this false quote.

    We could find no evidence that Johnson said this. A spokesperson for Johnson told fellow fact-checkers at USA Today the quote is not real. 

    (Screenshot of an Instagram Post)

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

    The quote is a misleading paraphrase of comments Johnson made in May 2022 about the economy and what the population’s size would be if abortion access had not been protected under Roe v. Wade. 

    “Roe v. Wade gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America,” Johnson said May 11, 2022, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.  

    The hearing took place days after a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn federal abortion protections was leaked to the press.

    During the hearing, Johnson expressed his support for this decision, then tried to illustrate what life would have been like had the Roe v. Wade precedent been different. 

    “My high school class should have been almost twice as large as it was,” he said. “Your classmates were not allowed to be born.” 

    Johnson also referred to how the economy could have changed if the population had been larger: 

    “We’re all struggling here to cover the bases of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest,” he said. “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this.”

    On Oct. 25, the day Johnson won the speaker election, President Joe Biden’s campaign and House Democrats circulated clips of Johnson’s comments on X, formerly Twitter.

    Although Johnson did refer to able-bodied workers when discussing abortions, there is no evidence he said, “Every woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker.” 

    We rate this claim False.



    Source

  • Fact Check: Al-Qaida terrorists were responsible for Sept. 11 attacks, not ‘Jews’ or Israel

    Al-Qaida terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but conspiracy theories implicating other culprits continue to abound on social media. 

    A Nov. 1 Instagram post, for example, declared in the caption that “Jews did 9/11.”

    It 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.)

    This is a longtime and unfounded claim. 

    In May 2009, the State Department addressed it and other prominent conspiracy theories, including that 4,000 Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on the day of the attacks, suggesting that they were involved in orchestrating them. 

    “Some 10% to 15% of WTC victims were Jewish,” according to the State Department. And “al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.”

    The Anti-Defamation League wrote in 2021 that such claims are a “continuation of centuries-old antisemitic tropes about Jews supposedly manipulating events for their own benefit.” 

    We rate claims that Jewish people, or Israel, are responsible for 9/11 Pants on Fire!

     



    Source

  • Trump’s False Claim That U.S. Military Moving to Electric Tanks

    Former President Donald Trump has a new talking point in his rally speeches, claiming that the Biden administration is moving the military to all-electric-powered tanks. For Trump, the attack line is a trifecta: He’s making President Joe Biden seem weak on defense and the military seem “woke,” while mocking Biden’s green energy efforts.

    It’s also false. The military currently has no plans for all-electric tanks.

    The military is moving toward the electrification of its vehicle fleets, starting with light-duty, non-tactical vehicles, citing not only environmental benefits but cost savings and operational advantages. As part of the military’s Climate Strategy released in 2022, the military also aspires to move to fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050. But even that doesn’t include combat vehicles such as tanks.

    Nonetheless, Trump has misleadingly seized on the military’s effort by falsely focusing on the claim that a push to convert most military vehicles to electric would include tanks.

    “And now we are a nation that wants to make our great Army tanks all-electric so that despite the fact that they will not be able to go very far, fewer pollutants will be released into the air of the territory that we are trying to conquer,” Trump said at a campaign rally near Miami on Nov. 8 — the same night as a GOP presidential primary debate that he did not attend.

    At a campaign event in Houston on Nov. 2, Trump made a similar claim.

    “Army tanks have to go electric … because the tanks, if they’re electric, they’re going into a country blasting the hell out of it. But at least we’re doing it in an environmentally friendly way,” Trump told the crowd.

    “The problem with the tanks, though — it’s really a problem — that the battery source capacity, it’s so big that the tank would have to pull something behind it that’s much bigger than the tank. So, that’s a little bit of a problem,” Trump continued. “They can’t seem to work that out. … They want to make our Army tanks all-electric for the environment.”

    But again, Trump’s premise is inaccurate.

    “While it may be true that an electric tank would have limited range, the Army is not planning on fielding or deploying an electric tank, though there have been prototypes of hybrid tanks,” Fabian Villalobos, an associate engineer at the RAND Corporation and an expert in emerging technologies and the defense industrial base, told us in a phone interview.

    But the military is moving toward electric vehicles. The Army’s 2022 Climate Strategy talks about reducing national security risks posed by climate change, and sets as an objective an all-electric, light-duty, non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027 and an all-electric, non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035.

    The plan also outlines the Army’s goal of switching to “purpose-built hybrid-drive tactical vehicles by 2035 and fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050.” Alongside that goal, the Army says it would “develop the charging capability to meet the needs of fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050.”

    Let’s break that down and explain the different types of vehicles affected — none of which include tanks.

    The Department of Defense had about 170,000 non-tactical vehicles in 2022, according to Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks. These are generally vehicles driven on military bases. And they are purchased not by the military, but the government’s General Services Administration.

    Light-duty, non-tactical vehicles — which the Climate Strategy said would be all-electric by 2027 — includes cars and sport utility vehicles.

    “They are the vehicles you would drive around a military installation or base to get from one building to another,” Villalobos said. They are not for use on the battlefield.

    The rest of the non-tactical vehicles — which the plan calls for moving to all-electric by 2035 — includes things such as dump trucks, smaller trucks, and Class 3, 4 and 5 vehicles, such as some vans and pickup trucks, Villalobos said. They are also for use on base and not on the battlefield.

    Switching to electric tactical vehicles will be more of a challenge, which is why the Climate Strategy calls for longer-term conversion of those fleets to hybrids by 2035 and all-electric by 2050. Tactical vehicles are used on the battlefield, typically in support roles. Those are different than combat vehicles, which are the ones that shoot at the enemy, Villalobos said.

    “Tactical definitely does not mean tanks,” he said.

    According to an article written by Walker Mills and Ryan Wiechens, and published in December by the Modern War Institute at West Point, “the technology is not ready for tactical vehicles because it requires incredibly heavy and bulky infrastructure for power generation and charging,” except for some “niche roles.”

    Mills is a nonresident fellow at Marine Corps University’s Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Future War and a nonresident fellow with the Irregular Warfare Initiative. Wiechens is a member of the technical staff in the energy systems group at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and he leads the laboratory’s development of modular and scalable tactical microgrids, hybrid power systems and vehicle electrification.

    In their article, they argue that conversion of the military’s vehicles to electric has “obvious tactical and financial benefits.”

    “Shifting the military to electric and hybrid vehicles shouldn’t be controversial; it will help make our forces more lethal and save the military money,” they wrote. “Yes, it will also help address the climate crisis, but that is just one of the advantages, which also extend to helping wean US forces off their dependence on foreign oil.”

    Moving to electric fleets “absolutely does have its advantages” in military conflict, Villalobos said.

    For example, he said, they are “more stealthy and harder to detect.” They are particularly well-suited for “silent watch,” those high-risk missions that are used to gather intelligence about an enemy without being detected. Electric vehicles are quieter than internal combustion engines and they don’t emit smoke from a tailpipe.

    Nonetheless, the military’s plan to move to electric has raised concerns, particularly among some Republicans.

    At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on April 26, Sen. Joni Ernst said Biden’s “cheerleading for green tech … has harmed the DOD’s operational energy approach.”

    As the military transitions its non-tactical fleet to electric, Ernst noted that “China controls mining and production for electric vehicle components.”

    Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said the administration had taken steps to jump start “responsible extraction here,” as well as to boost domestic battery pack manufacturing.

    Granholm said she supported the move to electric non-tactical vehicles.

    “I do think that reducing our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels, where we know that global events, such as the war in Ukraine, can jack up prices for people back home … does not contribute to energy security,” she said. “I think energy security is achieved when we have homegrown, clean energy that is abundant.”

    Ernst, who also raised concerns about cost and reliability, was not alone in her criticism of the move toward electric vehicles.

    In an interview on Fox Business on April 28, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin warned that “one simple electric magnetic pulse” could “take out a whole unit of vehicles, of tanks, of up-armored vehicles.”

    “Besides that, we’re going to be out on battlefields where they don’t really have what you consider charging stations,” Mullin said. “So, to charge the fleet, we’re going to be pulling these huge diesel generators to charge the fleets. And when they go down, instead of just simply running up there and pouring fuel in them, we’re going to have to sit there for hours while these batteries charge. And then one of our largest adversaries called China is the one that we’re going to be reliant on to make our batteries. This makes zero sense. But in a woke president that you have in President Biden and his woke Cabinet, this is the kind of results and ridiculous comments that you have.”

    In an op-ed published by the Washington Examiner on June 22, Republican Rep. Mike Waltz warned that Biden’s climate plan would “cripple the military’s readiness for our next conflict.” Of the plan to convert the non-tactical fleet to electric, Waltz said U.S. supply chains “aren’t suited to sustain such an overwhelming transition.”

    And, he wrote, “How would we possibly be able to maintain an electric vehicle fleet in, say, the mountains of Afghanistan or deserts of Iraq? Last I checked, there aren’t charging stations in the middle of battlefields.”

    Villalobos said the military is well aware of the need to develop field charging capabilities before electric vehicles could be used on the battlefield. He noted that the goal for electric tactical vehicles by 2050 also calls for developing “the charging capability to meet the needs of fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050.”

    “It’s not like they are putting electric charging stations in the battlefield,” said Villalobos, who noted, “there are no gas stations on the battlefield either.”

    As for the threat from electric magnetic pulses, Villalobos said petroleum-powered military vehicles already rely on electric devices and microchips. “It wouldn’t increase or reduce the risk either way,” he said.

    In their article for the Modern War Institute, Mills and Wiechens acknowledge that “there are real challenges to electrification and hybridization of the military’s ground vehicles.”

    “Batteries are obviously a critical component, and they are overwhelmingly manufactured outside the United States and rely on lithium, cobalt and other raw materials that are also largely sourced and refined outside the United States,” they wrote. “This creates a weak and brittle supply chain in peacetime and could cut off the defense industrial base from critical supplies completely in a major conflict. Increasing production of consumer electric vehicles will reinforce the critical battery sector but could also compete with production for the military. Several new domestic battery manufacturing plants are projected to open over the next few years, which will be critical for supporting domestic electrification. Similarly, expanding sources of lithium and other key materials are crucial for supporting the electrification of the military’s vehicles. The government needs to aggressively support these two essential industries to make electrification viable for the military.”

    We take no position on the ability of the U.S. to ramp up supply chains to accommodate the electrification of military vehicle fleets, or whether moving to electric vehicles is a good or bad idea. Trump doesn’t address those points at all. Instead, he asserts that Biden is mandating the move to all-electric tanks for environmental reasons, and he mocks the feasibility of such a move. But that’s not what the Army is planning to do.


    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

  • Fact Check: Altered video appears to show Canadian politician promoting an Elon Musk project, but it’s fake

    A video recently shared on Facebook appears to show Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, Canada, promoting X owner Elon Musk’s “latest project,” which he touts as a moneymaking opportunity exclusive to Canadians.

    But this video was altered. 

    A Nov. 3 Facebook post sharing it was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    The original footage of Ford, from September, shows him criticizing interest rate hikes and the Bank of Canada.

    The altered video follows a pattern we’ve found on social media in which clips appear to show news anchors or other public figures discussing get-rich-quick investment opportunities from Musk. 

    But they’re fake, and so is this video. We rate it False.

     



    Source