Dr. Anthony Fauci, former longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advised both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden on the COVID-19 pandemic.
In all, he was an advisor to seven presidents — Republicans and Democrats — and their administrations on domestic and global health issues.
But is he “fake”? A recent Instagram post claims as much. And not just figuratively speaking.
“Dr. Fauci doesn’t exist!” an Oct. 31 Instagram post says. “Fauci was not on Larry King Live during the ‘AIDS’ epidemic.”
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.)
First, we found two appearances Fauci made on CNN’s “Larry King Live” during the AIDS epidemic.
In August 1992, he was the guest on an episode titled “Latest Medical Dilemma — A New Strain of AIDS.”
In December 1993, he was on an episode titled “AIDS — The Risks of ‘Casual Contact.’”
Second, claims that Fauci doesn’t exist are unfounded. Such a cover-up would require the complicity of seven presidential administrations, dozens of reporters who have interviewed him over the years, colleagues at the National Institutes of Health — of which the National Institute of Allergy Infectious Diseases is a part — and his high school basketball team. He was team captain in the 1950s.
Such a conspiracy would also stretch back decades, to before Fauci was a public figure and a pandemic-era bogeyman for some Americans.
We rate claims Fauci is a fictional person Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact news researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.
A pro-Donald Trump super PAC and Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign are both spinning the facts about support for Puerto Rican statehood.
A TV ad from the super PAC claims that when DeSantis, now Florida’s governor, was a U.S. congressman, he “sided with the liberals” and sponsored a bill “to make Puerto Rico a state,” a move it said would result in adding two Democrats to the Senate.
In 2018, DeSantis was one of 22 Republicans who — along with 15 Democrats — originally co-sponsored H.R. 6246, the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018.
The DeSantis campaign says the bill “didn’t grant or take a position on Puerto Rican statehood” but merely “clarified the process by which statehood would be granted to ensure it was subject to the will of the American people and a full congressional vote.”
But that soft-pedals the intent of the bill. The bill title states that it seeks “to enable the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State.” After a transition process, the bill envisioned “final admission into the Union as a State no later than January 1, 2021.”
DeSantis’ campaign also argues that Trump once staked a similar position. When he was running for president in January 2016, Trump released a statement saying that Puerto Rico’s residents “should be entitled to determine for themselves their political status.” He said: “The will of the Puerto Rican people in any status referendum should be considered as Congress follows through on any desired change in status for Puerto Rico, including statehood.”
As president, Trump’s position on statehood turned to firm opposition after he clashed with several elected leaders in Puerto Rico who criticized his response to Hurricane Maria in 2017.
The ad attacking DeSantis is notable because its creator, the super PAC Make America Great Again Inc., had been ignoring DeSantis for months — at least when it comes to negative ads — focusing instead on attacking President Joe Biden. The ad, called “Power Play,” is airing in Iowa, which will hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses on Jan. 15.
A Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa poll in late October showed Trump leading among likely Republican caucusgoers with 43%, well ahead of DeSantis and Nikki Haley, who were tied with 16%.
Puerto Rico’s Status
Puerto Rico became a sovereignty of the U.S. after the Spanish American War in 1898. The island officially became a U.S. territory in 1917, and its residents became U.S. citizens. However, the roughly 3.3. million residents of the island cannot vote in general elections — though they can in primaries — and they have no voting representation in Congress.
Puerto Rico has a resident commissioner who serves in the U.S. House of Representatives but cannot vote on the floor.
In 2012 and again in 2017 and 2020, plebiscite votes in Puerto Rico showed majority support for statehood. But the idea has never gained enough traction in Congress for such a proposal to move forward. In order for Puerto Rico to become a state, legislation would have to pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law by the president.
Puerto Rican statehood historically has been supported more by Democratic leaders than Republican ones, Charles Venator Santiago, an associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, told us in a phone interview. Although the current resident commissioner who serves in the House is a Republican, that was more of a political consideration than an ideological one, he said. The governor of Puerto Rico is a Democrat.
“Most Puerto Ricans’ political leaders across ideology and local political parties identify with the Democratic Party,” Venator Santiago said. “In primaries, Democratic candidates tend to garner twice as many votes as Republican candidates. Democratic Party leaders tend to be more supportive of statehood than Republicans. Democrats have a longer track record of supporting social programs in Puerto Rico.”
But others aren’t convinced that federal elected leaders from Puerto Rico would necessarily be Democrats.
“Regarding this assumption [that residents of Puerto Rico would overwhelmingly support Democrats], I must say it is a widely popular, but incorrect one,” Mayra Vélez Serrano, a political scientist at the University of Puerto Rico, told us via email. “Although we don’t have good data to establish how likely it is that, if PR becomes a state, it will vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, we have some data that shows this might not be true.”
Results of the World Survey Values in 2001 and 2018 “show that in many politicized issues such as abortion, Puerto Ricans are very conservative,” she said.
“The survey included multiple items to measure the respondent’s stance in issues of individualism vs collectivism, and ethical and moral values, and Puerto Ricans were mostly positioned center to right of the ideological spectrum,” Vélez Serrano said. “Thus, there’s no evidence that Puerto Ricans are natural born Democrats. The evidence does show that we are heterogenous population, and that conservatives’ policies will very likely attract a great [portion] of the population.”
The MAGA Inc. Ad
Nonetheless, the MAGA Inc. ad assumes elected leaders from a Puerto Rican state would be Democrats, and it accuses DeSantis of playing into Democrats’ hands with his support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018.
“Liberals have a plan to make Puerto Rico a state, adding two Democrats to the Senate,” the ad’s narrator says. “And Ron DeSantis sided with the liberals’ power play. DeSantis actually sponsored the bill to make Puerto Rico a state. … DeSantis sided with the liberals and sold out Iowa conservatives.”
The ad states as a fact that Puerto Rico becoming a state would result in “adding two Democrats to the Senate.” An image cites a Newsweek article as the basis for its claim that “statehood for Puerto Rico means more Democrats.” But as we have said, that’s an opinion, not a certainty.
The Dec. 22, 2022, Newsweek article says, “Much of the Republican Party remains hostile to statehood for Puerto Rico, with many fearful it would likely hand the Democrats another two seats in the Senate.”
Although Puerto Rican statehood bills tend to get more support from Democrats, numerous Republicans have also supported such bills, including some from Florida where Puerto Ricans are a powerful voting bloc, with nearly 860,000 eligible voters in 2018, according to the Pew Research Center. Florida Republican Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, for example, have both consistently expressed support for Puerto Rican statehood.
“Unfortunately, at this time most of my colleagues, even in the Democrat Party and also in the Republican, do not support that,” Rubio told Univision/Orlando in 2021. “But that can change, that can be changed. And that is about working, explaining, teaching and educating the Puerto Rican reality and the reason why that [statehood] is important.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik, chair of the House Republican Conference, also co-sponsored the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018.
“I am supportive of statehood for Puerto Rico, if that is what the people of Puerto Rico decide to pursue,” Stefanik said last December. “And I have consistently supported legislation throughout my time in Congress that would achieve the goals of self-determined statehood, a principle which has been a long-held position of the Republican Party.”
The Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018
The Puerto Rico Admission Act was introduced by Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner, Jennifer González-Colón. In a press release issued the day the bill was introduced, June 27, 2018, González-Colón advocated statehood and talked about the “unequal treatment” Puerto Rico received after Hurricane Maria “due solely to our territorial situation.”
The bill sought to deem the plebiscites in 2012 and 2017 as “sufficient to trigger the transition process to Statehood.” The legislation called for the creation of a task force to study and make recommendations to Congress and the president about some logistics related to the transition to statehood.
According to González-Colón’s press release, “After the transition process, and no later than January 1, 2021, the President of the United States must issue a Proclamation declaring that Puerto Rico has ceased to be an incorporated territory of the United States and will be admitted to the Union as a State.”
“It was a pro-statehood admission bill,” Venator Santiago said.
But a spokesman for the DeSantis campaign insists the bill took no position on Puerto Rican statehood.
“The legislation you reference that DeSantis cosponsored (with 37 other members of Congress) didn’t grant or take a position on Puerto Rican statehood,” Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for the DeSantis campaign, told us via email. “It clarified the process by which statehood would be granted to ensure it was subject to the will of the American people and a full congressional vote.”
Griffin pointed to a section of the bill under the heading “Congressional Intent” that reads, “The enactment of this Act expresses the intent of Congress to pass legislation based upon the Task Force’s final report.”
“It put a process in place for PR to be potentially considered if they met specific parameters and, then, after affirmation by Congress,” Griffin said.
We asked Griffin what DeSantis’ current position was on statehood, but we did not get a response. We could not find any statements from DeSantis after he left Congress that articulates a position on the statehood issue.
New Progressive Party Rep. José Enrique “Quiquito” Meléndez, a lawmaker in Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives, told CE Noticias Financieras in a recent interview that it was past time for DeSantis to speak up on the issue.
“He must take a public position on statehood,” Meléndez said.
In a recent virtual event with voters in the U.S. Virgin Islands, DeSantis seemed to tip his hand, however, when he was asked if he supported congressional representation for U.S. territories.
“Well, how would the Virgin Islands vote for president — would they be red or blue?” DeSantis said. “I don’t want to pony up free electoral votes for the other team.”
“Obviously I think that we have these territories, people are Americans, and they should be treated as equal citizens,” DeSantis said. “How that works with the Electoral College, I’m not sure that there’s going to be necessarily a movement on that front, but I do think just generally speaking, the more equal the better.”
Trump’s Position
In response to the MAGA Inc. ad, Griffin also noted a statement from Trump that staked a similar position as the 2018 bill on the issue in January 2016.
“There are 3.7 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico. As citizens, they should be entitled to determine for themselves their political status,” Trump said in the statement. “I am firmly committed to the process where Puerto Ricans might resolve their status according to Constitutional and Congressional protocols. I believe the people of Puerto Rico deserve a process of status self-determination that gives them a fair and unambiguous choice on this matter. As president I will do my part to insure that Congress follows the Constitution. The will of the Puerto Rican people in any status referendum should be considered as Congress follows through on any desired change in status for Puerto Rico, including statehood.”
The GOP platform in 2016 also included support for Puerto Rican statehood.
U.S. and Puerto Rican flags wave next to a highway in eastern Puerto Rico on Sept. 29, 2017. Photo by Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images.
“We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state,” the 2016 Republican platform stated. It cited the 2012 referendum in favor of statehood and concluded, “Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union.”
The Republican Party didn’t adopt a new platform in 2020.
Trump’s position on statehood took a hard turn, however, after he clashed with some elected officials in Puerto Rico who criticized his response to Hurricane Maria, which made landfall on the island in September 2017. (As we have written, Trump drew the ire of some officials in Puerto Rico after he wrongly claimed the official death toll from the hurricane had been inflated — DeSantis publicly contradicted him at the time — and grossly overstated the amount of disaster relief the federal government had supplied to Puerto Rico.)
In a working lunch at the White House in June 2018, then Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló urged Trump to pursue “what we call the unfinished business of American democracy, and using your word, sir, you want to make America great again. I think, we can make it greater and expanding it to include Puerto Rico as the 51st state.”
Trump dismissed the comment, joking, “Ricardo is going to guarantee us two Republican senators, right? Is that correct? Make that process very quick. Might be a very quick process.”
“I guarantee Puerto Rico will be a battleground state,” Rosselló said.
Just a few months later, in September 2018, Trump was more unequivocal, saying he was an “absolute no” on statehood for Puerto Rico.
“With the mayor of San Juan as bad as she is and as incompetent as she is, Puerto Rico shouldn’t be talking about statehood until they get some people that really know what they’re doing,” Trump 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.
PolitiFact, the Poynter Institute’s fact-checking website, has named Katie Sanders as its editor-in-chief.
Sanders, 35, has served as managing editor since 2018. She succeeds Angie Drobnic Holan, who in July was named director of the International Fact-Checking Network. Poynter Institute President Neil Brown made the announcement in a meeting with the PolitiFact staff Thursday morning.
“I know you share in the pleasure of seeing this thoughtful and distinguished journalist ascend to the top post at our Pulitzer-winning fact-checking site,” Brown wrote in a letter to the newsroom.
Sanders has held a variety of reporting and editing roles for PolitiFact since joining the fact-checking website in 2011. She becomes PolitiFact’s third-ever top editor, following Holan and founding editor Bill Adair, who is now the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism & Public Policy at Duke University.
“Our work is urgent and needed,” Sanders said. “When you come to work for PolitiFact, you are almost overcome by this sense of mission to help voters make sense of confusing issues in their lives. That’s what kept me here, and why I’m so excited to lead such a dedicated team of journalists.”
Sanders has spent 12 years with PolitiFact in a variety of reporting and editing roles. She previously reported on government and politics for the Tampa Bay Times. (Poynter acquired PolitiFact from the Times in 2018.)
“Her career is a classic story of working your way up in the (Poynter) family business,” Brown told the staff.
Sanders grew up in Madison, Florida, and graduated from the University of Florida, summa cum laude in journalism as part of a dual degree. She started as an intern at what was then called the St. Petersburg Times in 2010, was hired as an editorial assistant in the Times’ statehouse bureau in Tallahassee in 2011 and covered breaking news and politics at the home office.
When the Times launched PolitiFact Florida in 2012, Sanders became a fact-checker covering the Florida Legislature from the state Capitol in Tallahassee. When the paper launched PunditFact in 2013 to hold media figures accountable, Sanders joined it and helped build it.
At PolitiFact, Sanders collaborated on a host of projects, including a sweeping initiative to document 533 of former President Barack Obama’s campaign promises. In the past several years, Sanders has helped select, write and edit PolitiFact’s signature Lie of the Year.
Sanders has represented PolitiFact on television, radio and social platforms. She has traveled the country and the globe to train and speak on topics including political reporting, fact-checking methodology and online harassment of journalists. Next week, she’ll lead the third iteration of United Facts of America, PolitiFact and Poynter’s annual three-day fact-checking festival.
Beyond Poynter, Sanders is president of the Florida Society of News Editors.
Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.
Quick Take
An online video shows Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing a 2021 military rally commemorating the triumph over Nazism in World War II. But an Instagram post sharing the video falsely claims Putin is shown announcing “help to Palestine” in the current war between Israel and Hamas.
Full Story
The fighting between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which began with Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, has raised fears of a wider conflict involving other nations in the Middle East.
More than 9,000 Palestinians have died, the Gaza health ministry said on Nov. 2, and more than 1,400 Israelis have died, the Associated Press reported.
In recent weeks, the U.S. has sent warships, aircraft and troops to the region. The increased American presence is intended to support Israel, protect U.S. forces already in the Middle East, and deter other countries from entering the war, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said on Oct. 26. “I won’t talk specific deployment locations for these forces, I can confirm that they are not going to Israel,” Ryder also said.
Meanwhile, a video posted on Instagram on Oct. 28 falsely suggests that it shows Russia is planning to provide military support to the Palestinians. The title on the video says, “Putin Announced Russia Will Openly Help to Palestine. No One Can Stop Us.” The video shows Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing troops at a military rally with armored vehicles and aerial displays of fighter jets and other aircraft.
A comment on the post reads, “Here we go WWIII! Thanks Biden!”
But the original video was not created after the start of the fighting between Israel and Hamas. It was made in May 2021 at a World War II “victory” ceremony. A translation of the transcript of Putin’s speech by the Russian media service Tass shows Putin was celebrating the May 9 Victory Day holiday, marking the defeat of Nazism in 1945.
Putin did not mention Palestine, Palestinians or Israel in the 2021 speech.
Putin has condemned the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and warned Israel not to block aid from reaching the Gaza Strip, the AP reported on Oct. 25. He has also said Russia could play the role of mediator because of its ties with Israel and the Palestinians, the AP reported.
The Russian president was not announcing armed support for the Palestinians in the video, as the Instagram post claims. The war between Israel and Hamas has sparked a barrage of misinformation and false claims on social media, as we’ve written.
Sources
Associated Press. “Russia maneuvers carefully over the Israel-Hamas war as it seeks to expand its global clout.” 25 Oct 2023.
Bigg, Matthew Mpoke. “What We Know About the War Between Israel and Hamas.” New York Times. 2 Nov 2023.
Christensen, Sean. “Posts Use Fabricated Audio to Misrepresent CNN Report During Rocket Attack in Israel.” FactCheck.org. 23 Oct 2023.
Copp, Tara. “The US is moving quickly to boost Israel’s military. A look at what assistance it’s providing.” Associated Press. 14 Oct 2023.
Garamone, Jim. “U.S. Military Continues Focus on Supporting Israel, Ukraine.” U.S. Department of Defense News. 26 Oct 2023.
Hale Spencer, Sara. “Social Media Posts Spread Bogus Quote From Qatari Leader.” FactCheck.org. 19 Oct 2023.
Hale Spencer, Sara and D’Angelo Gore. “What We Know About Three Widespread Israel-Hamas War Claims.” FactCheck.org. Updated 24 Oct 2023.
Sly, Liz. “Bloody assault on Israel sparks fears of a wider Mideast conflict.” Washington Post. 10 Oct 2023.
The Guardian. “Israel-Hamas war live: Palestinian death toll climbs to 9,061, including 3,760 children, says Gaza health ministry.” 2 Nov 2023.
Tass. “Speech by Vladimir Putin at the Victory Parade in Moscow.” Translation. 9 May 2021.
Toosi, Nahal, et al. “Biden is worried about a wider war in the Middle East. Here’s how it could happen.” Politico. 25 Oct 2023.
YouTube. “Victory Parade May 9, 2021: live broadcast.” 9 May 2021.
El huracán Otis azotó a Acapulco, México, a finales de octubre, dejando al menos 45 muertos.
Ahora un video en Facebook dice mostrar imágenes de este huracán.
El subtítulo de la publicación del 26 de octubre dice: “Momento cuando el huracán Otis llegó a Acapulco”.
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 a personas resguardándose de fuertes lluvias y escombros cayendo de edificios. Pero las imágenes que aparecen en el video no corresponden al huracán Otis, sino que son de dos tormentas en China.
En las primeras imágenes en el video se nota un letrero con letras Chinas y un bus verde pasando por la calle. PolitiFact hizo una búsqueda de imagen inversa y encontró un reporte de un medio local chino que traducimos al inglés. El video dice: el 24 de julio, “la montaña Taihang Gran Cañón en Shanxi, China fue golpeada por una tormenta”.
También hicimos una búsqueda de la imagen del bus verde, el cual nos llevó a una página web de transporte China que muestra imágenes iguales a las del bus en el video.
La publicación también muestra el techo de un centro deportivo levantándose, pero esto pasó en julio en Quanzhou, China, no en México. Un medio de comunicación local reportó que “Doksuri”, uno de los tifones más fuertes, afectó a la región.
Calificamos la declaración de que un video en Facebook muestra al huracán Otis en Acapulco 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.
Un video en TikTok dice que el expresidente de Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, falleció en un incendio en una cárcel de Nueva York, pero él sigue vivo.
“Nos estrechamos con el canal para dar la lamentable noticia del fallecimiento del exmandatario de la presidencia de Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández quien lamentablemente pierde la vida esto en Nueva York en la cárcel de máxima seguridad”, dice el narrador del video publicado el 26 de octubre.
Texto en el video dice “incendio en cárcel de Nueva York” y muestra una imagen de un edificio con humo.
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).
Hernández fue presidente desde enero del 2014 hasta enero del 2022, y fue arrestado y extraditado a Estados Unidos el 21 de abril de 2022 por cargos de tráfico de drogas y armas. Él se declaró no culpable y está detenido en el Metropolitan Detention Center en Brooklyn, Nueva York. Él espera su juicio, el cual fue pospuesto a febrero de 2024 a petición de su equipo legal.
PolitiFact revisó el sistema de presos del Federal Bureau of Prisons y encontró un recluso en el Metropolitan Detention Center con el mismo nombre, edad y raza que Hernández.
Esa base de datos dice que el número de registro de Hernández es 91441-054. Medios de noticias hondureños también han reportado que 91441-054 es el número de registro del expresidente.
El video en TikTok también muestra la imagen de una cárcel con humo, pero esta no es el Metropolitan Detention Center.
PolitiFact hizo una búsqueda de imagen inversa y encontró que la imagen en el video es de un incendio en 2020 en una cárcel en San Miguel, Chile.
No encontramos reportes de medios de comunicación en Honduras o Estados Unidos sobre la muerte de Hernández.
Calificamos la declaración de que Hernández falleció en un incendio en una cárcel en Nueva York 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.
In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, lawmakers united early in the COVID-19 pandemic to help states prepare for a national election.
The $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act — aka the CARES Act — included direct payments to most Americans, unemployment aid, business loans and $400 million for elections — including money for the expected increase in people voting by mail.
As he seeks the Republican presidential nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis now criticizes former President Donald Trump for approving the election section of the law.
“All these mail ballots — I think that is totally wrong to just send everyone a ballot,” DeSantis said during an Oct. 24 New Hampshire town hall sponsored by his political action committee, Never Back Down. “But the Republicans and Trump funded $400 million in March of 2020 for mail ballots. They funded it out of Washington — I would never have agreed to fund that.”
DeSantis’ office confirmed he was referring to the CARES Act.
That was not a bill to exclusively fund the increase in voting by mail. It allowed election officials to spend money in ways to make in-person voting safer, such as larger voting sites to allow for social distancing and protective and cleaning supplies for workers at precincts.
Although DeSantis objects to it now, Florida, under his leadership, sought its share of the money.
DeSantis and Trump, who are former allies, have intensified attacks on each other as they compete for the nomination. DeSantis has repeatedly attacked Trump over the CARES Act. Trump has falsely accused DeSantis of mandating COVID-19 vaccines.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, left, listens as President Donald Trump speaks July 31, 2020, during a roundtable discussion on the coronavirus outbreak in Belleair, Fla. (AP)
Election officials could use CARES Act for mail or in person voting expenses
The CARES Act passed the Senate 96-0 on March 25, 2020, and two days later the House passed it in a voice vote.
“I want to thank Republicans and Democrats for coming together, setting aside their differences, and putting America first,” Trump said when he signed the legislation.
The law included $400 million in election security grants. States had to put in a 20% match. Nationwide, about 84% of the money was spent, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found.
Election officials could use the money on supplies and staff for mail or in-person voting, including temporary staff to process the increased demand for mail ballots, mail ballot drop boxes, cleaning supplies, protective masks for staff and poll workers, mailings to voters and leasing of new polling spaces. More than 70% of states told the Election Assistance Commission they planned to use funds to help cover higher costs of voting by mail.
Florida sought $20 million in CARES Act election funding
DeSantis was not always a critic of the CARES Act.
In April 2020, DeSantis thanked Trump for Florida’s $4.1 billion share. By that point, Florida hadn’t sought the election dollars.
Florida’s association of election supervisors, a bipartisan group, wrote a letter to DeSantis in May 2020 urging him to accept the election money.
Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee, a DeSantis appointee, wrote a May 15, 2020, letter to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission formally requesting the election money. “We are requesting the full amount of the award, $20,253,853, at this time,” Lee wrote, saying that Florida would use the money to prepare for and respond to COVID-19 during the election year.
That means that DeSantis’ administration sought a portion of the same pot of money that he now criticizes Trump for signing into law.
Florida told the Election Assistance Commission that the money went toward staff, voting by mail, maintenance of voter registration lists, polling sites equipment, cleaning and protective equipment at polling sites, leasing additional space, and public outreach to voters.
In Miami-Dade County, the jurisdiction with the highest numbers of voters, the elections office spent the $2.2 million on voting-by-mail costs, including additional ballots and drop boxes, personal protective equipment including masks and hand sanitizer, and training for staff and poll workers.
Broward County, which received about $1.8 million, paid poll workers hazard pay, bought them gloves and masks and paid for cleaning staff to repeatedly wipe down voting stations. Money also went toward disposable pens for voters.
“If you can imagine across hundreds of precincts, we had a lot of money spent to make sure in-person voting was safe,” said Broward Supervisor of Elections Joe Scott, who was elected in November 2020.
Voters prepare to turn in their mail-in ballots, Oct. 6, 2020, at the Miami-Dade County Elections Department in Doral, Fla. (AP)
New Hampshire spent money on increased mail voting
Some states that largely voted in person before the pandemic, such as New Hampshire, faced the challenge of paying for an increase in voting by mail.
Before the pandemic, New Hampshire allowed only some voters to cast absentee ballots, for example, if they had a disability or illness. But in 2020, state officials said any voter could cast an absentee ballot.
Rebecca Dickie, town clerk in Farmington, New Hampshire, told PolitiFact that in a typical election, about 100 voters cast an absentee ballot. That rose to about 900 in November 2020.
The secretary of state’s office told us that New Hampshire used the majority of its $3.2 million in grant money to reimburse cities and towns based on a fixed rate for each absentee ballot exceeding those cast in 2016. Smaller amounts went toward other expenses, such as PPE and hardware and software for recounts.
In this Nov. 3, 2020, file photo, two women, wearing protective masks because of the COVID-19 virus outbreak, vote at a polling station at New Hampshire’s Windham High School. (AP)
Our ruling
DeSantis said “the Republicans and Trump funded $400 million in March of 2020 for mail ballots.”
DeSantis is partially correct here — the CARES Act Congress included $400 million for elections and some of it went toward expanding voting by mail. But election officials also used the money to provide safe in-person voting, including paying for protective gear, precinct cleaning supplies and spaces that allowed for social distancing.
The law was supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, as evident by the unanimous vote in the Senate.
The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate this statement Half True.
Unverified reports about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s health have been circulating online, driven by social media and foreign news outlets.
An Oct. 24 TikTok video claimed that Putin, 71, had suffered a heart attack. The video showed footage from a broadcast by Australian news channel 10 News First that cited “an organization called General SVR,” which claimed to have “classified intelligence on the Kremlin.”
TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact’s partnership with TikTok.)
(Screengrab from TikTok)
This claim originated on Telegram, a platform known for facilitating the spread of misinformation related to Russia.
An Oct. 23 post from the account “General SVR” claimed that the night before, security guards found Putin convulsing on his bedroom floor and that doctors were called to resuscitate him. It also claimed that a body double has been appearing in Putin’s place at recent events and meetings. (We used Google Translate to translate the post from Russian to English.)
The General SVR post has been viewed more than 730,000 times and forwarded to other channels 24,000 times, according to the Telegram analysis tool TGStat.
In the week since the General SVR post was shared, the Telegram account gained 85,000 subscribers and now has a following of more than 453,000, per TGStat. The account was created in 2020, and its author and sources are not identified.
The post also has been shared widely on other social media platforms and cited in multiple news outlets worldwide that are known for publishing misleading or unverified reports, including Sky News Australia, The Mirror U.K., the EurAsian Times and the Tribune India.
The Kremlin denied claims that Putin was ill.
“Everything is fine with him, this is absolutely another fake,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters Oct. 24, per Reuters. “This belongs to the category of absurd information hoaxes that a whole series of media discuss with enviable tenacity.”
Photos released by Russian media show Putin at meetings and public events in the days following his alleged health emergency. Putin was also seen Oct. 25 on Russian state television directing a nuclear strike drill via a video call, The Associated Press reported.
The General SVR Telegram account has shared dubious claims about Putin’s health in the past, including one post last December that was picked up by the U.K.’s Daily Mail about the Russian president falling down stairs.
PolitiFact rates claims based on the information known at the time the statement is made.
Based on available information, we rate the claim that Putin recently suffered a heart attack False.
House Speaker Mike Johnson cited concern about “fiscal stability” in saying that a Republican bill to provide aid for Israel would have “pay-fors in it.” But the legislation would increase the deficit, not pay for itself.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is sworn in at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 25, after being elected as the 56th speaker in the House of Representatives. Photo by Tom Brenner/AFP via Getty Images.
The bill calls for $14.3 billion in spending to respond to the attacks in Israel and proposes “budgetary offsets” by rescinding the same amount of funding to the Internal Revenue Service. That’s not an “offset,” multiple budget experts say. Reducing the IRS’ ability to collect taxes that are owed would lower revenues and therefore increase deficits.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement about the bill that “paying for new spending by defunding tax enforcement is worse than not paying for it at all. Instead of costing $14 billion, the House bill will add upward of $30 billion to the debt. Instead of avoiding new borrowing, this plan doubles down on it.”
Johnson made his comments in an interview with Fox News. He said he hoped to hold a vote on the standalone aid package for Israel on Thursday. “We’re not just going to print money and send it overseas, because the other concern we have that is overriding this is our own strength as a nation, which is tied to our fiscal stability,” the new House speaker said in a clip host Kayleigh McEnany posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Oct. 30. “And that’s a big problem that we have as well. We have to keep it in mind as we try to help everyone else.”
When asked how the aid spending would be paid for, Johnson said he wanted to “take some of the money that has been set aside for … building and bulking up the IRS right now.” Indeed, that’s what the bill calls for, under a section titled “budgetary offsets.”
“It’s ridiculous to call this an offset, considering the IRS funding is projected to reduce deficits,” Steve Ellis, president of the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a statement. “This is not a cost-saving measure; it’s a recipe for fiscal recklessness.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that rescinding the IRS funding would decrease revenues by $26.8 billion over the next 10 years, causing a net increase in deficits of $12.5 billion. That doesn’t include the budgetary impact of the Israel aid, which would increase discretionary spending by about $14.3 billion.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that reducing the IRS funding would increase deficits by $23.1 billion, a figure that also doesn’t factor in the funding to Israel.
“The country has a massive tax gap,” Ellis said, referring to the difference between what the IRS is legally owed and what it collects, “with the Treasury receiving $688 billion less than it should have for 2020-2021.” He called the House bill “a cynical ploy that risks crippling the IRS.”
MacGuineas said the House’s desire to offset the emergency spending for Israel was “welcome news,” but canceling the IRS funding doesn’t do that. “Funding the IRS to reduce the tax gap has a long history of bipartisan support and has been proposed by every President from Reagan through Biden. It is one of the few ways to raise revenue without raising taxes,” she said. “Getting into the habit of offsetting the costs of new spending and tax cuts is critical given our fiscal situation. But you can’t pay for borrowing with more borrowing.”
Johnson misleadingly portrayed the issue as a choice between spending the $14-plus billion for Israel or spending it for the IRS. “I think if you put this to the American people and they weigh the two needs, I think they’re going to say standing with Israel and protecting the innocent over there is in our national interest and is a more immediate need than IRS agents.”
Republicans have objected to the IRS funding, which was part of the Inflation Reduction Act. That law, passed in August 2022 with only the support of Democrats and independents, included about $79.6 billion in additional IRS funding. Several Republicans have falsely claimed the money would back the hiring of an additional “87,000 IRS agents” who would go after the “middle class.”
As we’ve written, the 87,000 figure is the number of employees the IRS could hire with the funding, but most hires would replace retiring or departing workers, the Treasury Department told us, and most new jobs would be in customer service. Some tax enforcers would be hired, but the focus would be auditing high-income earners, administration officials have said.
Republicans have already clawed back some of the IRS funding included in the Inflation Reduction Act. As part of the debt limit deal reached between Democrats and Republicans in June, $1.4 billion of IRS funding for enforcement and operations support that was made available from the IRA was cut. And the White House said it had agreed to cut another $20 billion in IRS funding over the next two fiscal years.
The House GOP bill, if it passes that chamber, would not likely survive the Democratic-controlled Senate. Some Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have supported passing a bill that would include both funding to Israel and Ukraine. The White House is seeking nearly $106 billion in funding, which, in addition to $14.3 billion for Israel, includes $61.4 billion for Ukraine; $9.15 billion in humanitarian aid for Israel, Gaza and Ukraine; $7.4 billion to countries in the Indo-Pacific region to counter China; and $13.6 billion for border security.
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.
The stumping and stomping of the 2024 presidential election are here. Amid the rallies, debates and rhetoric, voters are trying to discern truth.
The Poynter Institute and PolitiFact, its Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism arm, will help people separate fact from fiction at this year’s United Facts of America. Register for the free event here.
The three-day virtual festival of fact-checking, running Nov. 6 to Nov. 8, will cover the Republican presidential field, GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump’s trials, Israel-Hamas war misinformation and Spanish fact-checking. The event coincides with big political events, including the Nov. 7 general election in Kentucky and the Nov. 8 Republican presidential primary debate in Miami, which NBC and Rumble will broadcast and PolitiFact will cover.
ABC News Political Director Rick Klein; PBS NewsHour Weekend anchor and journalist Hari Sreenivasan; The Bulwark publisher and “Focus Group” podcast host Sarah Longwell; Alliance for Securing Democracy Research Analyst Peter Benzoni; and Dr. Céline Grounder will deliver expert insights.
PolitiFact team members, including Managing Editor Katie Sanders, Executive Director Aaron Sharockman and Deputy Editors Rebecca Catalanello and Miriam Valverde, will lead interviews and join United Facts of America panels.
This festival is for everyone interested in fact-based expression, civic engagement and facts’ function in a free society. Come celebrate facts with us.
Here’s a thumbnail sketch of the schedule:
Monday, Nov. 6
10 a.m., The 2024 race. PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Louis Jacobson will interview ABC News Political Director Rick Klein about the 2024 presidential race and its candidates and issues. Discussion will cover Trump’s legal cases, President Joe Biden’s classified documents investigation and Republican accusations over Biden’s family business dealings. It will also touch on Trump’s rivals for their party’s nomination. Klein and Jacobson will analyze the candidates’ successes and stumbles and will forecast discussion topics for the Nov. 8 debate, including abortion and immigration.
11 a.m., Vaxxes and facts. Catalanello will interview Dr. Céline Grounder, an internist, infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist who is also a KFF senior fellow and host of the “Epidemic” podcast. Discussion will cover vaccine research, the state of the COVID-19 pandemic and whether anyone, especially children, is getting the new boosters. Catalanello and Grounder will also discuss vaccine misinformation following the deaths of celebrities, most recently “Friends” star Matthew Perry, and why it persists.
1 p.m., The Russia threat. Sharockman will interview Peter Benzoni of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan advocacy group countering Russian efforts to undermine democratic institutions in the United States and Europe. Discussion will explore how Russian propaganda is bypassing U.S. content bans and posing as local news.
Tuesday, Nov. 7
11 a.m., What do voters really want? Sanders will interview Sarah Longwell, who publishes The Bulwark, a conservative news and opinion website, and hosts “The Focus Group,” a podcast. Discussion will cover how focus groups are chosen, how their members consume news and whether their political inclinations change given new information, particularly over the 2020 presidential election, which Trump falsely said was “rigged.”
Noon, Fact-checking en español. Gloria Ordaz, co-anchor of Noticiero Telemundo 51/WSCV-TV, will interview Valverde and Staff Writers Maria Briceño and Marta Campabadal Graus about what motivated PolitiFact to start fact-checking in Spanish.
1 p.m., The legal campaign overhang. If 2020 was the Zoom Year Election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, 2024 is emerging as the Courtroom Trial Election — Trump could be spending many weeks at the defendant’s table in Washington, D.C., Florida and Georgia as voters cast primary ballots. PolitiFact Staff Writer Amy Sherman will discuss the cases and their facts with Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg and Jon Sale, a former Watergate special prosecutor and former attorney for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Wednesday, Nov. 8
11 a.m., The artificial-intelligence threat. MediaWise Director Alex Mahadevan will interview PBS NewsHour Weekend anchor and journalist Hari Sreenivasan and Oxford Internet Observatory doctoral researcher Felix Simon about artificial intelligence’s misinformation threat amid the Israel-Hamas war.
7:30 p.m., Debate warm-up. PolitiFact staff and special guests at the Miami site of the third Republican presidential primary debate will discuss the candidates, campaigns and issues.
