Was the American flag barred from Alaska’s Denali National Park & Preserve on Memorial Day weekend, as social media users claim?
A May 27 Instagram post showed a photo of snowy mountains and an American flag, and a caption that read, “Alaska @Sen_DanSullivan is demanding answers after reports emerged that the American flag was banned from being flown at Denali National Park over Memorial Day weekend.”
Other Instagram and X users, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, also shared similar posts about an American flag ban at Denali National Park.
This appears to have originated with a May 23 report from conservative news outlet Alaska Watchman, which cited an unnamed construction worker involved with a bridge project in Denali National Park. According to the Alaska Watchman report, the worker said Denali National Park Superintendent Brooke Merrell told the crew’s supervisor that bridge workers could no longer fly the American flag on their trucks.
Two days after the Alaska Watchman report, Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, shared on X a letter he sent to the National Park Service demanding an explanation for the purported American flag ban. A day later, on May 26, a convoy of trucks flying the American flag drove two hours from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Denali National Park.
The National Park Service issued a May 26 statement that said reports of Denali construction workers being ordered to remove the American flag from their vehicles are “false.”
“At no time did an NPS official seek to ban the American flag from the project site or associated vehicles. The NPS neither administers the bridge project contract, nor has the authority to enforce terms or policies related to the contract or contractors performing the work,” the statement read.
The National Park Service said the American flag has continued to fly in multiple locations throughout Denali National Park, including at campsites, on public and private vehicles and at employee residences.
The Federal Highway Administration, which is overseeing the contract for bridge construction work inside Denali National Park, told PolitiFact in a statement that the agency “fully supports the display of American flags.”
“As is always the case with construction work in our national parks, the goal is to minimize impacts and noise for both visitors and wildlife as much as possible. (National Park Service) staff relayed concerns to (the Federal Highway Administration) — as it does with all feedback related to the project — regarding single occupant vehicle traffic, as well as a visitor complaint about a flag on a vehicle while the vehicle was in motion. (The Federal Highway Administration) brought both concerns to the responsible contractor, who addressed the situation per their usual process,” the agency said.
A separate statement the Federal Highway Administration provided to Alaska Public Media said the complaint was “about the noise a bridge worker’s vehicle-mounted flag was making while travelling the Park Road.”
The contractor, Granite Construction, told Alaska Public Media that it had been asked by the highway administration to remove the vehicle’s flag, and it complied because the project is aimed at “maintain(ing) park visitors’ experience by keeping a low profile as we go about our work.”
Former President and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s felony conviction in New York raised questions about what comes next. Trump can still run for president, but claims about his voting eligibility followed the May 30 verdict.
“Trump can’t vote for himself in the November election,” Florida state Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Sunny Isles Beach, wrote on X after the verdict. “He can thank Florida Republicans for that.”
Pizzo’s X post received a corrective, crowdsourced community note detailing what legal experts have previously told us: Trump likely would not lose his voting rights. Many legal experts, including the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group that supports voting rights, said Trump’s ability to vote hinges on whether he is in prison on Election Day.
Trump can’t vote for himself in the November election. He can thank Florida Republicans for that.
Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11. Many legal experts have expressed doubt that Trump will be sentenced to prison because the charge is a nonviolent, low-level felony and he has no previous convictions.
“We are going to be appealing this scam,” Trump said at a May 31 press conference at Trump Tower in New York.
It is widely expected that the appeal process will extend beyond Election Day.
When we contacted Pizzo for comment, he said Trump would not have the right to vote until all the terms of his sentence had been satisfied, citing Florida law. We found that Florida defers to other states’ laws when the conviction is in their jurisdiction. Pizzo also acknowledged that Trump can vote while appealing his conviction.
“Sen. Pizzo’s statement holds true for someone convicted of a felony in Florida or in federal court — but Trump was convicted in state court in New York,” Blair Bowie, director of the Restore Your Vote program at the Campaign Legal Center, told PolitiFact. “Trump will not lose his right to vote in this case unless he is in prison on Election Day.”
Florida’s law about voting after a felony conviction
States pass laws about whether people convicted of felonies lose their voting rights and if so, how they can regain them.
Trump lives in Florida. People convicted in Florida of most felonies lose their voting rights until they serve their entire sentence, including prison time, probation and paying fines, according to the Florida Department of State. (Murder and sexual offense felonies make people ineligible to vote unless the State Clemency Board restores their rights.)
However, Trump was convicted in New York. And according to Florida’s Department of State, “a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.”
New York law passed a 2021 law that restores voting rights for people convicted of felonies upon their release from prison. People convicted of felonies don’t lose the right to vote unless they are in prison serving their sentences. And people whose prison sentences are stayed pending appeal do not lose their voting rights, Kathleen R. McGrath, a New York state Board of Elections spokesperson, told PolitiFact.
After Trump is sentenced, it is highly likely his lawyers will file a motion to the appeals court asking that the sentence be stayed during the appeal. In 99% of cases involving white-collar defendants, that motion is granted, said Evan Gotlob, a former local and federal prosecutor.
“Former President Trump would therefore need to be actually incarcerated during the time of the November election to lose his ability to vote,” said Neil Volz, the deputy director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, the group that advocated for Florida’s 2018 constitutional amendment restoring felon voting rights.
University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald, an expert on disenfranchisement of people convicted of felonies, told PolitiFact, “Trump may, in fact, be removed from the voter rolls but it seems highly unlikely he will be removed by November.”
“The most reasonable scenario here is that Trump remains on the voter rolls,” McDonald said. “He could be sentenced to prison, and he could be serving time by the time we get to November, I guess I can’t rule out that possibility, but it seems like a very remote possibility.”
In 2018, Floridians voted in favor of the amendment that restores the voting rights of people with felony convictions after those people complete the terms of their sentences. Previously, people with felony convictions had to seek to regain their voting rights through the state clemency board.
Florida state officials, including from the Department of State, have not responded to PolitiFact’s questions about Trump’s voting rights. Trump is a registered voter in Palm Beach County.
Our ruling
Pizzo said, “Trump can’t vote for himself in the November election.”
This is premature and against the odds. The Florida Department of State says a felony conviction in another state invalidates the right to vote in Florida only if “the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.” That means New York’s laws would apply to Trump. In that state, people convicted of felonies lose the right to vote only while incarcerated.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced July 11. Even if he receives prison time — which many legal experts said they think is unlikely — it would be stayed pending an appeal that is likely to extend beyond Election Day.
Pizzo’s statement contains an element of truth because it cannot be ruled out that Trump would be incarcerated on Election Day and therefore unable to vote for himself. But the statement ignores critical facts that would give a different impression: Trump has said he will appeal his conviction. This would stay his sentence until the appeal is complete — widely expected to be after Election Day.
We rate this statement Mostly False.
RELATED: Following guilty verdict, fact-checking Donald Trump on Biden’s role, being a ‘political prisoner’
A Manhattan jury concluded May 30 that Donald Trump was guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. We’re fact-checking the former president’s speech at Trump Tower live.
Former President Donald Trump is a convicted felon.
A unanimous jury in the Manhattan case concluded May 30 that Trump was guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
“Victory on November 5th!” Trump wrote on Truth Social soon after the jury read its historic verdict. “Save America!!!”
Trump spoke to reporters briefly after the verdict and his campaign sent out an email. We fact-checked their statements.
“Breaking from Trump: I am a political prisoner!”— Trump campaign email
We rated a similar statement by another speaker False.
There’s no universally accepted definition of “political prisoner,” but human rights and international law experts told PolitiFact in April 2023 that political prisoners are targeted specifically for their political beliefs or activities.
Experts told us then that there was no sign the legal proceedings in Trump’s case were unfair or that he was being held without due process, which is a common experience for political prisoners. Political prisoners are also frequently tortured or mistreated, experts said. Trump had legal representation and has a right to appeal.
Being detained or imprisoned is a crucial part of being classified a political prisoner, according to experts and several available definitions. Trump was convicted, but he has not been detained. He’ll face sentencing July 11.
Milena Sterio, a law professor at Cleveland State University College of Law, said there is nothing that signals Trump is a political prisoner. He “was not charged with criminal offenses because of his political beliefs,” she said. He was not imprisoned for participating in protests or for expressing dissenting opinions, she said, and he has not suffered any mistreatment of human rights violations.
“Most importantly, he was not held without a trial or due process — his convictions are the result of a relatively lengthy trial,” she said.
“This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent.” — Trump in remarks to reporters
We rated a similar statement by Trump False.
The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation of Trump began in 2018, before Biden was his party’s presidential nominee. District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the charges in 2023. Trump’s fighting a subpoena lengthened this timeline.
Trump has criticized Bragg for hiring Matthew Colangelo, a former Justice Department prosecutor who, when working for the New York attorney general, investigated Trump. Multiple lawyers told us that seasoned prosecutors commonly move among federal, state and local offices. Reasonable people may question the political wisdom of Bragg’s hire, but it doesn’t prove that Biden has directed the Manhattan investigation.
“The more relevant prior position held by Colangelo is not his DOJ jobs, but the NY AG position in which he participated in the Trump Foundation investigation,” University of Missouri law professor Frank O. Bowman III wrote in an email.
“I’d bet that Bragg hired him in part because of his familiarity with the intricacies of Trump’s businesses and financial dealings,” Bowman, a former local prosecutor in Denver and federal prosecutor in Florida, wrote. “But, again, that proves exactly nothing about Biden influence on the Manhattan case.”
“You have a Soros-backed DA.” — Trump in remarks to reporters
George Soros is a liberal billionaire and the frequent target of conservatives’ criticism.
There is a tie between Bragg and Soros, but it’s indirect.
Soros did not donate directly to Bragg’s campaign. Soros donated $1 million in May 2021 to Color of Change, a progressive racial justice group that endorsed Bragg and pledged to spend more than $1 million supporting his campaign. Color of Change supported other progressive district attorney candidates, too.
It’s impossible to know whether Soros or Color of Change swayed Bragg’s decisions on investigating Trump. The group’s long-standing focus has been on criminal justice policy and racial equity rather than on Trump’s legal situation.
Soros has long supported prosecutors who seek to reform the criminal justice system. While campaigning, Bragg argued that there’s a separate standard of justice for the rich and powerful than for everyone else.
RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments
Soon after former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in a New York hush money case, a comedian’s X post stirred confusion about what it means for the presumptive Republican nominee’s future.
“President Trump has been declared GUILTY on all counts. So what does this mean, legally speaking,” a May 30 X post said. “Trump is no longer eligible to run for president and must drop out of the race immediately. The constitution prohibits anyone with a criminal conviction from running. Nikki Haley will be the nominee since she finished second.”
The X post shared an image of Trump with the words, “Ineligible to run for president.”
It was retweeted more than 600 times an hour after it was posted, but many of the quote reshares seemed to be in on the joke. Some accounts, however, took it seriously; several argued with the post and one international account shared it verbatim with no context that it was satire.
To them, we offer this: There is nothing that would bar Trump from continuing his White House bid. Convicted felons have run for president before. Lyndon LaRouche, convicted of tax and mail fraud conspiracy in 1988, ran multiple times for president.
A comedian who goes by the name “Three Year Letterman” and describes himself as a “Youth Football Coaching Legend” and a “Showstopping Little League Umpire” created the X post. The sports website The Athletic wrote a 2020 profile of the satire account’s creator, agreeing not to name him but describing him as a millennial attorney.
The account’s X post about Trump’s conviction made two other dubious assertions about the verdict’s effect on Trump, including that “double jeopardy” requires he be convicted of all pending charges in other states without a trial and that because he appealed a jury’s verdict in the civil E. Jean Carroll case, he can’t appeal this one.
And the account separately shared a ridiculous analysis of what an innocent verdict would have meant for Trump, including that all other charges against him must be dropped.
The X post tagged rapper Vanilla Ice, the band Whitesnake and the Jiffy Lube car service chain in the Trump photo.
The X account links to a website that shows his “greatest hits” on Twitter, where he interacted with high profile accounts such as Scientology, which blocked him, and U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who went back and forth with him over actor Kevin Costner.
As for the satire post’s other claims, double jeopardy means that a person can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Trump is facing unrelated racketeering charges in an alleged plot to overturn Georgia’s presidential election results. He’s also facing unrelated federal charges from special counsel Jack Smith relating to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents.
Trump’s appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict does not affect his ability to appeal his conviction in New York, which is expected. Trump on Truth Social shortly after the verdict wrote “this is long from over.”
The X post’s claim that Trump can no longer run for president is from a satirical X account. It’s been shared without that context by others, but the claim is False.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.
It’s no secret that former President Donald Trump and his allies believe Juan Merchan, the Manhattan judge overseeing Trump’s falsifying business records trial, has it out for the high-profile defendant.
Trump has called Merchan “highly conflicted” and “Trump-hating.” Earlier in the trial, Trump misleadingly claimed Merchan prevented him from attending his son Barron’s high school graduation. At the time, Merchan hadn’t yet decided the trial schedule, and court proceedings were later paused to allow Trump to attend.
Trump was found guilty May 30 on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an alleged plan to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
But before the verdict came, and as Trump’s trial reached closing arguments May 28, Fox News host Jesse Watters claimed that Merchan had shown favor to the prosecution.
Alina Habba, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team, joined Watters on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on May 28 to discuss the court proceedings. Watters asked Habba to weigh in on the courtroom proceedings.
“So, we’re hearing from inside the court — and you can confirm this — every time defense raise an objection, overruled,” Watters said.
“Overruled,” Habba agreed.
Watters said the “judge overrules every objection from the defense and sustains every objection from the prosecution.”
(Internet Archive)
That description doesn’t align with actual events.
News reports show that objections from Trump’s defense team were sustained multiple times May 28 and some objections from the prosecution were overruled.
Also, a review of transcripts from the trial’s earlier days show Merchan sustained and overruled objections from lawyers on both sides on numerous occasions.
We contacted Fox News and a spokesperson did not provide evidence for the claim.
Defense objections were sustained, prosecution objections were overruled
First a note about legal terminology. A lawyer objects when they feel that the opposing counsel has violated rules of evidence. The judge must rule on that objection immediately by either sustaining the objection or overruling. If the judge overrules, that means the judge determined the objection was invalid; if the judge sustains the objection, it means the judge believes it to be valid under the rules of evidence.
It’s unclear whether Watters’ characterization of Merchan’s objections was limited to the closing arguments, but we started there.
Reporting about the courtroom proceedings showed that Merchan sustained more than one objection from the defense May 28.
In a live update at about 7 p.m., The Associated Press reported that the defense objected to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’ argument about threats Stormy Daniels faced. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said the argument was “extraordinarily prejudicial,” and Merchan told Steinglass to move along, The Associated Press wrote.
At 7:45 p.m., NBC News reported that Merchan sustained another defense objection over comments the prosecution made to the jury about their deliberation process. Merchan interjected after sustaining the objection, saying that he would instruct the jury “on the law and the evidence.”
At about 8 p.m., near the end of the prosecution’s five-hour closing argument, CBS News reported that Steinglass said: “He got his day in court. Donald Trump can’t shoot someone in rush hour on Fifth Avenue and get away with it,” referring to Trump’s 2016 remark that he could shoot someone without losing voters.
The defense raised an objection that Merchan sustained, according to CBS.
Earlier in the day, The New York Times reported that prosecutors’ objections were overruled at least twice.
“Prosecutors have objected to Blanche twice, with one objection overruled and one sustained, as he tries to refer to (former media executive David) Pecker saying he consulted lawyers about this deal,” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote around 11 a.m. during the defense team’s closing arguments. “Blanche appears briefly flummoxed.”
Then, just after noon, Haberman wrote: “Todd Blanche is now arguing that Stormy Daniels was called to testify in order to inflame the jurors’ emotions and to embarrass Trump. Prosecutors object, but Justice Merchan allows it.”
Aaron Blake, a political reporter covering the trial for The Washington Post, said on X that Merchan had “sustained 6 objections from the defense” and “overruled 8 objections from the prosecution,” according to the transcript.
PolitiFact also reviewed the transcripts from several earlier days of the trial. Throughout the trial, Merchan regularly sustained and overruled objections from prosecution and defense lawyers, the documents showed.
On April 23, for example, jurors heard testimony from Pecker, whose company published the National Enquirer. Pecker described his efforts to help bury unflattering stories about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. That day, the defense raised at least 12 objections; Merchan sustained five and overruled seven.
On May 10, Trump’s former White House assistant Madeleine Westerhout testified, saying she remembered that Trump had been upset and concerned for his family after the Stormy Daniels hush money payments became public. The prosecution objected at least 16 times May 10. Merchan overruled half those objections and sustained the other half.
Our ruling
Watters said May 28 that during Trump’s trial, Merchan had overruled every objection from the defense and sustained every objection from the prosecution.
News reports from the closing arguments that day show that Merchan sustained at least three objections from the defense and overruled at least two objections from the prosecution.
Trial transcripts also show that throughout the trial, Merchan regularly sustained and overruled objections from prosecution and defense lawyers.
We rate this claim False.
RELATED: Fact-checking the False claim that the Trump’s NY jury verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous
RELATED:Trump N.Y. trial countdown: What happens after the jury’s verdict?
A unanimous jury found former President Donald Trump guilty May 30 on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
An image that appeared on social media soon after showed a shouting Trump being frogmarched by police and left some people wondering: Was he whisked off to custody?
“GUILTY!” the May 30 Instagram post said.
“Is the above picture real?” one account commented on the post, which 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 image appears to have been generated using artificial intelligence. A photo of a former U.S. president being taken away by law enforcement following an historic verdict would be widely publicized by news outlets across the world. But reverse image searches for the picture turned up no news reports.
One account commenting on the Instagram post wondered if it was AI: “His skin isn’t this smooth.”
In the image, Trump is wearing a navy blue and white striped tie. In the courtroom, he was wearing a solid royal blue tie. And more importantly: He wasn’t taken into custody. Trump spoke to reporters after the verdict and his sentencing is scheduled for July 11. There’s no guarantee he’ll receive a jail sentence.
There’s no match for the image in wire photos captured by journalists on the ground in New York.
We rate claims this image shows Trump getting arrested after his guilty verdict May 30 False.
In a landmark moment in U.S. political and legal history, a Manhattan jury on May 30 found former President Donald Trump guilty of multiple felony counts.
A unanimous jury in the Manhattan case concluded that Trump was guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
Trump, who was president from January 2017 to January 2021, has been the presumptive Republican nominee against the incumbent Democratic president, Joe Biden. It’s unclear how the 34-count conviction could affect the presidential race: but, no matter what happens, Trump is still allowed to run for president
Sentencing is to come July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump is slated to be formally nominated as the party’s presidential candidate.
The Manhattan case is the first of four Trump trials. Because of legal delays in two federal cases on documents and election interference as well as a Georgia election interference case, it may end up being the only trial to reach a jury verdict before November’s election. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction.
The jury deliberated for about 10 hours over two days.
In brief remarks at the courthouse following the verdict, Trump repeated his view that the process was “rigged” and promised to “fight to the end.” He has regularly described the prosecution as politically motivated and complained that it was being held in New York City, a jurisdiction that overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2020.
Here’s what we know about what could happen next.
Since Trump has been convicted, when will sentencing occur?
Sentencing is scheduled for July 11 in the Manhattan courthouse and will be overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial.
How would an appeal of the guilty verdict play out?
Trump is all but certain to appeal if he is convicted. The appeal process would probably extend beyond Election Day.
Trump has 30 days to state in writing that he will appeal. He would have months more to file his actual appeal, said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, criminal defense attorney and former executive chief of the trial division and chief assistant district attorney at the Manhattan District attorney’s office. Once the appeal is filed, it would still take additional months before the appeals court hears oral arguments and potentially months more before the court renders a decision.
It would not be unusual for the process to take a year or more, experts said.
Is Trump likely to receive a jail sentence?
An analysis by Norman L. Eisen, who was a counsel for Donald Trump’s first impeachment and trial, calculated that during Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s first year in office, his team alone filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 people or companies. Eisen found that approximately 1 in 10 cases in which the most serious charge was falsifying business records in the first degree resulted in some term of imprisonment. But he cautioned that other charges may have tipped the scales toward incarceration in some of those prior sentences.
Merchan’s potential decision on sentencing in the Manhattan case is anyone’s guess. Working in Trump’s favor is that he doesn’t have prior convictions and the charges are a low-level nonviolent felony, legal experts said. Working against Trump is that he has been held in contempt multiple times for breaching a gag order.
Will Trump still have secret service if he goes to prison?
The Secret Service, which handles former presidents’ security, has been planning for the possibility of Trump’s incarceration for gag order violations or a post conviction sentence, The New York Times, CBS and ABC have reported.
“For all settings around the world, the U.S. Secret Service studies locations and develops comprehensive and layered protective models that incorporate state of the art technology, protective intelligence and advanced security tactics to safeguard those we protect,” Special Agent Joe Routh told PolitiFact before the verdict. “In order to maintain operational security, we do not comment on specific protective operations.”
Could Biden pardon him? Could Trump pardon himself?
Because Trump was convicted on state charges, Biden cannot pardon him. The president can pardon only for federal charges, Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul could possibly pardon Trump, Kalt added, but that likelihood is considered low because she is a Democrat.
Meanwhile, Trump couldn’t pardon himself if he regains the presidency for the same reason that Biden can’t. (It’s also unclear at best whether a president could pardon themselves for a federal crime, legal experts said.)
Can Trump still run for president after his conviction?
Yes. The U.S. Constitution upholds the principle that voters decide who should represent them, and its qualifications are limited to natural-born citizenship, age (35 by Inauguration Day) and residency in the United States (14 years).
Convicted felons have run for president in the past. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times between 1976 and 2004. Eugene Debs was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, then ran for president under the Socialist Party banner from a federal prison in Alabama in 1920.
Will Trump lose his voting rights?
That’s unlikely.
Trump is a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Florida Department of State website states that “a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.”
New York law passed a law in 2021 that restores voting rights for people convicted of felonies upon their release from prison. Voters don’t lose their right to vote unless they are in prison serving a sentence for a felony conviction. People whose prison sentences are stayed pending appeal do not lose their voting rights.
What’s the status of the other criminal cases against Trump?
It’s unlikely that the other criminal cases will go to trial before Election Day.
The federal election interference case has been paused because of Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on that case by early July.
The Supreme Court’s decision would not affect the New York case because much of the alleged conduct occurred before Trump was president.
The trial for the federal classified documents was set to start in Florida in May. But the judge postponed the date amid legal motions that she has yet to rule on. She has not set a new date.
In Georgia, an appeals court agreed May 8 to review a lower court ruling that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue to prosecute Trump. That decision makes it less likely the case will reach trial before November.
PolitiFact senior correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this article.
RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictment
Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty by a jury in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an effort to conceal election law violations after buying the silence of porn star Stormy Daniels, shortly before the 2016 election. Daniels said she had a sexual encounter with Trump, who denies it. In recent days in his remarks outside the courthouse, in speeches and on social media, Trump repeatedly has made false and misleading statements about the case and trial.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that President Joe Biden is behind the prosecution of this case. This is a New York state case, and Biden has no control over it.
The former president has claimed that the judge in this case — Justice Juan Merchan — is “corrupt” or “conflicted,” but one of Trump’s own lawyers last year said he had “no issue … whatsoever” with Merchan.
Trump wrongly has claimed a limited gag order — barring remarks about certain trial participants — prevented him from answering “simple questions” or criticizing the Biden administration.
He falsely claimed that Merchan “wouldn’t let” Trump’s defense team call campaign finance expert Bradley Smith as a witness. The judge did not say Smith couldn’t testify, although he limited what Smith could potentially discuss if he testified.
Trump wrongly said the judge wouldn’t allow an “advice of counsel” defense. Before the trial, Trump’s attorneys chose not to seek such a defense, and Merchan held them to that decision.
He has also claimed that all legal scholars said this case “shouldn’t be brought,” and that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg himself “didn’t want to bring the case.” Bragg said he didn’t want to pursue a broader financial crimes case until it was “ready,” and there were some law experts who said the hush money case against Trump was “strong.”
The jury began its deliberations on May 29 and reached the verdict the following day. The indictment was brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. (See our Q&A on the indictment for more information.)
After the guilty verdict was revealed, Trump told reporters, “This was a rigged, disgraceful trial.” Sentencing is scheduled for July 11.
Not a Biden Case
Without evidence, Trump has repeatedly claimed that President Joe Biden is responsible for the prosecution of this case. Biden has no control over state-level prosecutors.
Trump appears in the Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, the second day of jury deliberations. The verdict came later in the day. Photo by Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images.
“Make no mistake about it, I’m here because of crooked Joe Biden,” Trump claimed on May 28 in remarks to the press before closing arguments in the case. “This is purely his weaponization.” The following day, Trump said, “It was all done by Joe Biden. This judge contributed to Joe Biden.” He repeated the claim again after the guilty verdict, saying, “This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent.”
The 34-count indictment for this case was brought by Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney.
Despite his unsupported claims that Biden is behind the case, Trump has also claimed that “the federal government” looked at this case and “turned it down.” (The Federal Election Commission voted 2-2 on whether Trump violated campaign finance laws, so it couldn’t pursue any charges.)
Separately, the federal government has indicted Trump for other matters — his handling of classified documents after he left office and his attempts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election. But those cases, which Biden has denied any involvement in, have nothing to do with the New York hush-money case.
Trump’s suggestion that the judge in this case, Justice Juan Merchan, is linked to Biden rests on a $15 contribution Merchan made to Biden’s presidential campaign in 2020.
As we’ve reported before, Federal Election Commission records show three small donations from Merchan to ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising platform, in July 2020. In addition to the $15 to Biden’s campaign, the other two donations, of $10 each, were earmarked for the voter mobilization group Progressive Turnout Project and the group’s digital ad campaign called Stop Republicans.
Reuters reported on May 17 that the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed an ethics complaint about the donations, with a caution to Merchan. Last May, an advisory ethics committee said Merchan wouldn’t need to recuse himself from the case, writing that “these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge.”
Attacks on Judge
Besides pointing to that small political contribution, Trump has made other attacks on Merchan’s credibility, claiming repeatedly, including after the verdict, that he is “corrupt” or “conflicted.” But before the trial, one of Trump’s lawyers at the time said he has “no issue … whatsoever” with Merchan overseeing the case.
In an April 2, 2023, interview with CNN, then Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina — who in January withdrew from representing the former president — said Merchan “has a very good reputation.”
Asked if he thought Merchan was biased, Tacopina said, “I have no reason to believe this judge is biased.”
According to his court bio, Merchan has been an acting justice on the New York Supreme Court since 2009. He was appointed to the Family Court for Bronx County in 2006 by then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
In the past, Trump has objected to Merchan having been the judge who sentenced the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to five months in jail in a tax fraud case. At the January 2023 sentencing, Merchan said had there not been a plea deal, he would have imposed a harsher sentence than the five months, which ultimately was reduced to 100 days with good behavior. Weisselberg was released in April 2023, but sentenced to five months again, by a different judge, this April after committing perjury in the New York civil fraud trial against Trump.
Last year, Trump also said that Merchan’s daughter “worked for Kamala Harris” and “now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign.”As we’ve said before, the career of Merchan’s daughter is irrelevant; she’s not the judge in this case. She works for a digital campaign consulting firm that does work for progressive clients, including the two campaigns mentioned by Trump.
Limited Gag Order
One of Trump’s more common — and often inaccurate — claims involves a gag order that Merchan imposed on March 26 and expanded on April 1.
“Every time I speak to you, you ask me simple questions. I’m not allowed to give you the answer because I’m gagged by the judge,” Trump said in remarks outside the courtroom on May 29, as jury deliberations began.
The former president has made similar remarks before and during the trial. At the Libertarian National Convention on May 25, Trump wrongly accused the “Biden regime” of “imposing a strict gag order in order to keep me from talking about their crimes and their unconstitutional acts.”
The gag order issued by Merchan — not “the Biden regime” — did not prevent Trump from speaking “every time” he was asked a question, and it did not prevent him from criticizing the Biden administration.
Manhattan District Attorney Bragg requested a gag order in February, citing the former president’s “long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings against him, including jurors, witnesses, lawyers and court staff.” Merchan agreed to a limited gag order that sought to prevent Trump from making intimidating or harassing remarks about certain trial participants.
Specifically, the March 26 order covered witnesses, jurors, court staffers, the prosecuting attorney and the district attorney’s staff (though not the district attorney himself), as well as family members of the district attorney’s prosecutors and staff members. “The uncontested record reflecting the Defendant’s prior extrajudicial statements establishes a sufficient risk to the administration of justice consistent with the standard set forth in Landmark, and there exists no less restrictive means to prevent such risk,” Merchan wrote, referring to a 1978 Supreme Court ruling.
The judge expanded his order on April 1 to include his family and member’s of the district attorney’s family after Trump attacked the judge’s daughter on social media.
“The average observer, must now, after hearing defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well,” Merchan wrote. “Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”
The gag order, in its original and the amended form, allowed Trump to criticize Merchan and Bragg. And, of course, Trump was free to continue to make remarks about Biden and others not involved in the trial.
“The Defendant has a constitutional right to speak to the American voters freely, and to defend himself publicly,” the amended order stated. “This Decision and Order is equally narrowly tailored and in no way prevents Defendant from responding to alleged political attacks but does address Defendant’s recent speech.”
To date, Trump has been fined $10,000 for violating the gag order on 10 occasions. Among the violations were comments about witnesses and the jury, including a social media post that quoted a Fox News host as saying “undercover Liberal Activists” were “lying to the Judge” to get on the jury.
Smith Could Have Testified
In his May 29 remarks, Trump falsely said that his attorneys planned to have Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman, testify for the defense, but were denied by Merchan.
“This judge didn’t even let us use the No. 1 election attorney,” Trump said. “We had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify. Wouldn’t let him do it.”
But it’s not true that Merchan would not let Smith take the stand. Trump’s team decided not to use Smith as a witness after Merchan narrowed what he could talk about.
In a pretrial decision, Merchan ruled that Smith could “not testify as a lay (fact) witness; offer opinion testimony regarding the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws and how they relate to the facts in the instant matter, nor may Smith testify or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct in this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.”
Instead, Merchan said that Smith would be permitted to provide “general background” about the FEC, including what it does and what laws it may enforce, and he would be able to define certain terms, such as campaign contribution, “that relate directly to this case.”
However, in court on May 20, Merchan also said that “it will be impossible” for Smith to address three specific terms that the defense wanted Smith to talk about “without invoking, discussing and interpreting the application of federal law.” The judge also pointed out that if Smith were called to testify, the prosecution would be allowed to call its own witness to testify on the same subject matter, resulting in a “battle of the experts” that may confuse the jury.
Ultimately, Smith was not asked to testify in court. In a social media post on May 20, Smith complained that Merchan had “so restricted” his testimony, but acknowledged that the “defense has decided not to call” him.
‘Advice of Counsel’ Defense
On the evening after closing arguments, Trump complained on Truth Social that Merchan would not allow him to employ an “advice of counsel” defense during the trial. Actually, Trump’s defense attorneys made a strategic decision before the trial to not seek such a defense. Merchan held them to that.
“An advice of counsel defense says that the defendant lacked the specific intent necessary to commit the charged crime (in this case, intent to defraud) because he was advised by his attorney that his behavior was lawful,” Randall D. Eliason, who teaches white collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School, explained to us via email. “If that’s true, that negates the required criminal intent.”
“THE GREATEST CASE I’VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on May 28. “ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!”
“To present such a defense, the defense usually has to announce it in advance and, most important, has to agree to waive attorney-client privilege so the attorney can testify about the legal advice given,” said Eliason, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, where he served as chief of the public corruption/government fraud section. “That waiver would apply to all attorney-client communications, so the defense often is reluctant to do that.
“That’s what happened in this case – Trump was not willing to waive attorney-client privilege as required, so the judge told him he could not present the defense,” Eliason said. “So he was not flatly prohibited from offering an advice of counsel defense, he was prevented from doing so when he would not take the legal steps necessary (including waiver) to properly raise the defense. That’s standard.”
In a March 12 court filing, Trump’s attorneys said they would not be employing a “formal advice-of-counsel defense.”
However, Trump’s lawyers did attempt to put forth a related argument, that Trump “lacked the requisite intent to commit the conduct charged in the Indictment because of his awareness that various lawyers were involved in the underlying conduct giving rise to the charges.” They noted that this argument was not “a formal advice-of-counsel defense,” which, his lawyers said, “would require him to prove at trial that he (1) made a complete disclosure to counsel [concerning the matter at issue], (2) sought advice as to the legality of his conduct, (3) received advice that his conduct was legal, and (4) relied on that advice in good faith.”
Therefore, they argued, “there is no privilege waiver requiring production of communications protected by the attorney-client privilege.”
On March 18, however, Merchan ruled against the use of a so-called “presence” of counsel defense.
“To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it,” Merchan wrote. “The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic.”
Nevertheless, during the trial, one of Trump’s attorneys said, according to a CNN account, that he wanted “to be able to argue that because Michael Cohen testified that ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker told him the agreement was ‘bulletproof’ and Cohen communicated that to Trump, that they should be able to argue it goes to Trump’s state of mind and intent to defraud.”
Merchan said his previous decision had not changed and “honestly I find it disingenuous to make it at this point.”
“This is an argument that you’ve been advancing for many, many, many months,” Merchan added. “This is something you’ve been trying to get through to the jury for many, many, many months. It’s denied; it’s not going to happen. Please don’t raise it again.”
The Case Against Trump
Trump has argued that he should have never been put on trial because “every single legal scholar and expert said this is no case” and “shouldn’t be brought,” as he said on May 29. Even “Bragg didn’t want to bring the case.” On May 30, Trump claimed that “Bragg turned it down, then rejuvenated it when I was running for office.”
It’s not true that there were no legal minds who thought there was a case against Trump.
Norman Eisen, a CNN legal analyst who served as special counsel for ethics and government reform during the Obama administration, and John Dean, a CNN contributor and former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon, wrote an April 2023 opinion piece titled “Alvin Bragg was right to prosecute Donald Trump.”
The men noted that many had said that the hush money case appeared “too political,” “too thorny legally” and “should have been brought by federal authorities – or not at all.” And though Eisen and Dean said that there were “important critiques of the case” that “are worthy of consideration,” the men concluded that “ultimately, they are all wrong.”
“Bragg’s case is a strong one and should not be resisted merely because it involves a controversial political figure,” they wrote.
Eisen made similar points in another April 2023 op-ed co-authored with Karen Friedman Agnifilo, also a CNN legal analyst and a former Manhattan chief assistant district attorney. The headline: “We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong.”
They said some legal observers feared that the case would be weak, which turned out not to be so.
“With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case,” Eisen and Adnifilo wrote. “The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.”
In the end, they said that Trump was “being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.”
As for Bragg, Trump may be referencing comments that were made about his reluctance to bring a broader case about Trump’s alleged financial crimes — not specifically the hush money case.
As we have written, Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, wrote in a book released in early 2023 that Cy Vance, Bragg’s DA predecessor, “agreed and authorized” the prosecution of Trump for allegedly obtaining bank loans by overvaluing his assets. But Pomerantz wrote that once Bragg took office, “the new regime decided that Donald Trump should not be prosecuted, and the investigation faltered.”
When Pomerantz resigned in protest in March 2022, he said that Bragg’s decision was “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”
However, Bragg later said that he had not ruled out bringing a case in the future.
“I bring hard cases when they are ready,” Bragg said, during a February 2023 press conference, in which he was asked about what Pomerantz had written in his book. “Mark Pomerantz’s case simply was not ready. So I said to my team, let’s keep working,” Bragg said.
Bragg announced the indictment for the hush money case against Trump on April 4, 2023.
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.
New York taxpayers are spending $2.4 billion on services for migrants in New York City, prompting claims from some lawmakers about what the migrants are receiving.
Assemblymember Doug Smith, a Long Island Republican, shared an image on his social media accounts that claimed the recently enacted state budget includes free health care and debit cards for “illegal immigrants.”
The cost of providing services for a surge of migrants has been grabbing headlines, so we wondered if Smith’s statement is correct.
The new budget covers spending from April 1 through March 31, 2025, and allocates $2.4 billion for migrant services over fiscal years 2025 and 2026. The budget doesn’t spell out exactly what the money will be spent on, using broad terms like “humanitarian aid,” and “services and assistance.” But it also states the money should be used for specific items such as immunizations and communicable disease testing. A city budget document calls this state allocation “flexible funding.”
The $2.4 billion allocation is included in the state’s Aid to Localities bill, and it’s “for services and expenses associated with the costs of migrant individuals and families entering New York State pursuant to a plan approved by the director of the budget. Such services and expenses shall include, but not be limited to: aid to New York City for providing humanitarian aid, including short term shelter services for such migrant individuals and families; aid to New York City for case management and legal services for such migrant individuals and families; programs to provide services and assistance to such migrant individuals and families; programs to provide immunizations for and communicable disease testing of such individuals and families; programs to assist in relocation and resettlement.”
Funds are also available for any state division or the National Guard.
Gov. Kathy Hochul, when discussing budget highlights in January, said the allocation would go toward helping New York City shelter migrants.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams told the state Legislature in February the money is not enough to cover the city’s growing expenses associated with the new arrivals. In the city’s fiscal year 2025 budget document, released on April 24, the city estimates that more than 190,000 migrants have arrived since July 2022, and that costs associated with them will reach $10 billion by 2025. In Adams’ city budget message, he said the $2.4 billion from the state is “flexible funding” for costs associated with migrants, with $1.06 billion for sheltering migrants, and $637 million for Humanitarian Emergency Response and Relief Centers, or HERRCs, at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, Randall’s Island and Floyd Bennett Field.
Lawmakers asked Adams and his budget team in February what the city would spend the money on.
“Some of it is going to be spent already on the Humanitarian Relief Centers that we have in place and it’s going to be spent on housing and some of the other needs that come with asylum seekers,” Adams said. “We have to, and I think it’s important for all of us to know, we have to take the full care of the asylum seekers. That’s cleaning, housing, feeding, everything a family needs.”
The state financial plan from February offers additional specificity. The state has assisted with state public health insurance programs for people who are eligible and “safety net assistance” for asylum seekers who are eligible.
It’s unclear whether the “safety net assistance” in the state budget for the city means the money will fund the prepaid debit cards the city is issuing to migrants to purchase food and baby supplies. New York City provided the debit cards because migrants are not eligible for traditional food stamp benefits that are issued on electronic benefit cards.
PolitiFact left questions six times by email and phone with the state Division of Budget over two weeks but received no response. The city’s Division of Management and Budget also did not respond to two inquiries.
On the claim the money will fund “free health care,” various health care and insurance options are available to immigrants in New York City. Eligibility for each program varies. The state’s Child Health Plus plan offers health insurance coverage for all children, regardless of immigration status. All migrants can also get Medicaid for emergency treatment, or traditional Medicaid if they are pregnant. Medicaid is free or very low cost. The city’s public hospitals provide health care to all immigrants regardless of a person’s ability to pay.
Smith, the Long Island Assembly member, sent several news articles about the city’s use of prepaid debit cards and migrant access to health care as evidence for his claim.
The state budget allocation to the city is flexible, and we cannot determine whether it will be used to fund pre-paid debit cards. We will not rate this claim on the Truth-O-Meter.
Immigrant advocates we spoke with also said that coming to the United States to seek asylum or temporary protected status is not illegal, so Smith’s use of the term is misleading.
