World Health Organization Chief Scientist Dr. Jeremy Farrar expressed concern in an April 18 news conference about an outbreak of the bird flu, known as H5N1, at U.S. dairy farms. He urged health officials to better monitor and prepare in case the virus evolves and begins spreading among humans.
At least three U.S. farm workers have been infected with the virus, but there’s no evidence of human-to-human transmission, Farrar said, calling it a “global zoonotic animal pandemic.”
Nevertheless, some social media users are using his words and other bird flu news to suggest that unknown actors are planning a new pandemic in an election year.
“Tell me the Presidential elections coming up without telling me Presidential elections coming up,” a May 12 Instagram post said in sticker text on a video of Farrar speaking about avian influenza.
The post noted that 70 people In Colorado are “under surveillance for having potentially contracted bird flu,” and included the hashtags #WAKEUPAMERICA, #BYDESIGN AND #SCAMDEMIC.
It’s unclear how the poster thinks a bird flu pandemic would affect the U.S. elections in November. But the claim echoes similar widely debunked claims that elites planned the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, also an election year. Some of them said COVID-19 was created to hurt former President Donald Trump’s chances at re-election.
We found multiple examples of social media users — some using the same video of Farrar — tying the bird flu news to the upcoming election and suggesting unnamed forces are using the virus to spread fear and exert control.
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.)
(Instagram screenshot)
The Instagram post shared clips of Farrar at the April 18 WHO news conference in Geneva., responding to a question about the bird flu virus that has spread globally, infecting dairy cows in the U.S.
The H5N1 virus has been found in U.S. birds since 2022 and has infected more than 92 million birds in 48 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The virus has spread to mammals, with outbreaks reported in dozens of dairy herds in nine states.
But there is no bird flu pandemic in the U.S., at least among humans. Farrar urged strong surveillance of the virus so health officials can be prepared with vaccines and therapeutics should it evolve to spread between humans.
“The great concern, of course, is that in doing so and infecting ducks and chickens — but now increasingly mammals — that that virus now evolves and develops the ability to infect humans. And then critically, the ability to go from human-to-human transmission,” he said.
Avian influenza is not a planned or engineered virus. It occurs naturally among wild birds, such as ducks and geese that can also infect domestic birds, such as chickens and turkeys, and mammals. Highly pathogenic strains of the virus can cause severe infection and death in birds. There have been global bird flu outbreaks in animals throughout the years, including in the U.S. in 2014-15. The first description of the bird flu was in 1878 in northern Italy. The H5N1 strain was first found in waterfowl in China in 1996.
Human cases of bird flu are rare, but have occurred globally for nearly three decades, the CDC said. The virus is frequently lethal to humans — about 52% of the 887 people diagnosed with the virus worldwide since 2004 have died, the WHO said.
The CDC said the risk is low for humans and that the risk depends on exposure to infected animals.
Thus far, only two people — a Texas dairy farm worker in April and a Michigan farm worker in May — have been infected with the bird flu linked to dairy farms; each had reported mild symptoms. An earlier human case was diagnosed in a Colorado poultry farm worker in 2022.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment told CBS News earlier this month that about 70 dairy farm workers from two farms were being monitored for bird flu symptoms after being exposed to the virus.
A claim that the bird flu outbreak in the U.S. is being planned to affect the U.S. presidential elections ignores that the H5N1 virus occurs naturally and that bird flu has existed for more than a century. The H5N1 strain was first found in 1996 in southern China. The current outbreak affecting dairy cattle emerged in the U.S. in 2022. The claim is False.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
A Michigan town clerk pleaded no contest in 2023 to a charge of misconduct in office. Social media posts misleadingly highlight her case to push the false narrative that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.” The clerk’s case was related to her local primary race, not the presidential election.
Full Story
Kathy Funk, who was up for reelection as a town clerk in Michigan, in 2020, took a plea deal in a case accusing her of hampering the recount in her primary.
Funk was the clerk in the Township of Flint — which is next to, but separate from, the City of Flint, which garnered national attention in 2015 for its lead water crisis. She had won the Democratic primary for that August 2020 race by 79 votes.
Prosecutors accused her of breaking the seal on a canister of election ballots so that they couldn’t be recounted.
In January 2023, Funk pleaded no contest to one count of misconduct in office, which means that she accepted the punishment but didn’t admit guilt. The punishment, in this case, was two years of probation and six months of house arrest. Prosecutors dropped a charge of ballot tampering.
Funk’s primary election in August 2020 was not related to the general election in November or the Michigan presidential primary, which was held on March 10, 2020.
But the Epoch Times, a conservative publication with a history of spreading misinformation, has posted a video on social media suggesting that this case — which received news coverage when it was resolved a year ago — is new. The video also vaguely refers to Funk’s crime “during the 2020 election cycle,” leaving some viewers to wrongly conclude her actions affected the 2020 presidential election.
A shorter, promotional video for the full five-minute video doesn’t identify Funk — who had left her job as clerk in 2021 to become the elections supervisor for Genesee County. She was placed on administrative leave from her county job when criminal charges were filed against her, and she was terminated in late 2022.
The promotional video uses vague language, saying only, “A woman who was both a county election official as well as a former township clerk, she was convicted of tampering with ballots during the 2020 election cycle.”
It goes on to say, “Specifically during a recount process, this woman, using her official access, spoiled a batch of ballots in order to make them ineligible to be recounted.”
Posts on social media sharing links to the video falsely suggested that Funk’s behavior impacted the 2020 presidential election, a claim that contributes to the ongoing false narrative that the election was “stolen” from former President Donald Trump, who is a primary proponent of this falsehood.
One post on Facebook, for example, said, “TRUMP WAS RIGHT Election Official busted for rigging the 2020 election!!” The page that shared the post is run by a Minnesota-based marketing company called Making Web, which runs conservative digital properties — including a website called Trending Politics that has published false claims we’ve written about before and a website that sells pro-Trump merchandise, such as a flag with the slogan, “make votes count again.”
Another Facebook post said, “RIGGED FROM THE START Election Official busted for rigging the 2020 election!!”
Both of those posts linked to the Epoch Times’ video hosted on the outlet’s website, which requires users to sign in to watch.
The title of the video says only, “Former Election Official Convicted for Ballot Tampering.” The full video gives more details, including Funk’s name and the fact that her case involved only her own primary election. But the comments on the Epoch Times’ video and the social media posts indicate that the details were lost on users, many of whom expressed anger at the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
President Joe Biden won that election with 306 electoral votes, compared with 232 for Trump, according to the Federal Election Commission. Biden also won the popular vote, 51% to 47%.
But the false narrative that the election was stolen has persisted, and claims like the ones made in social media posts about Funk contribute to its longevity.
Sources
State of Michigan v. Kathy Funk. Docket. Accessed 22 May 2024.
Genesee County, Michigan. Primary Election, Tuesday, August 4, 2020. Official results. 18 Aug 2020.
Michigan Department of Attorney General. Press release. “AG Nessel Charges Former Flint Township Clerk with Ballot Tampering.” 11 Mar 2022.
Michigan Department of Attorney General. Press release. “Former Flint Twp. Clerk Funk Sentenced for Misconduct in Office.” 25 Apr 2023.
Norris, Pippa. Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Harvard University. “Electoral Integrity in the 2020 U.S. Elections.” The Electoral Integrity Project. 1 Dec 2020.
Federal Election Commission. “Federal Elections 2020.” Oct. 2022.
Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s recent commencement address at Benedictine College has drawn criticism for his remarks about motherhood and sparked misinformation.
We’ve already debunked a claim that Butker said society would be better off if “women had more babies than thoughts.”
Another, in which the Kansas City Chiefs coach allegedly threatens to quit if the team drops Butker, is also fake.
“Andy Reed says he’ll stand with Harrison Butker: ‘If they get rid of Harrison, they get rid of me,’” reads text over an image of Butker and Reid, misspelling Reid’s last name.
“‘I’m not losing a great kicker to this whole woke thing,’” a May 18 Facebook post quoted Reid as saying. “‘Not on my watch.’”
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.)
This claim originated on the Facebook account of a self-described satire site.
America’s Last Line of Defense, which describes itself as the flagship of a “network of trolley” and is labeled “satire/parody” on Facebook, posted an image of Butker and Reid on May 18 with text that said, “Andy Reed says he’ll stand with Harrison Butker: ‘If they get rid of Harrison, they get rid of me.’”
“The Chiefs have been hinting that they’re planning on releasing the kicker but head coach Andy Reed says no way,” the post said. “‘I’m not losing a great kicker to this whole woke thing. Not on my watch.’”
Although there is an online petition for the Chiefs to cut Butker, we found neither evidence that the team has considered doing so nor that Reid has spoken out in Butker’s defense.
Although the “NFL distanced itself” from Harrison’s comments, the Kansas City Star reported May 17, but “the Chiefs have remained mum to this point about Butker.”
We rate claims that Reid threatened to quit over Butker False.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
College commencement remarks by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker on the roles of women drew widespread criticism, including from Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder. Social media posts falsely claimed Arrowhead Stadium, where the Chiefs play, then canceled concerts by the band. A team spokesperson said Pearl Jam was “never scheduled to perform” at the venue.
Full Story
Harrison Butker, the kicker for the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs, made a series of controversial remarks while delivering the commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, on May 11.
In his over 20-minute address at the Catholic private college, Butker took swipes at President Joe Biden’s position on abortion, the celebration of PRIDE Month, and “degenerate cultural values in media.”
Butker also offered his views on the roles of women.
Butker, May 11: For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.
I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.
Butker received a standing ovation at the end of his address, the Associated Press reported. But his remarks were also widely criticized — including by the Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica, a sponsor of Benedictine College, who said they “do not believe that Harrison Butker’s comments in his 2024 Benedictine College commencement address represent the Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts college that our founders envisioned and in which we have been so invested,” The Athletic reported.
Pearl Jam Singer Kicks Back
Butker’s views on women’s roles came under fire from Eddie Vedder, the lead singer of Pearl Jam, during a May 18 concert in Las Vegas, Variety reported. Vedder praised the show’s opening act, Deep Sea Diver, which includes two women. “The singer, Jessica, and the keyboard player, Patti, they must not have believed that ‘diabolical lie’ that women should take pride in taking a back seat to their man,” Vedder said, referring to Butker’s remarks.
“There should be pride in homemaking if you’re a man or a woman … it’s one of the hardest jobs and you should definitely take pride in it, but you’re going to benefit by giving up your dreams?” Vedder said, later adding, “There’s nothing more masculine than a strong man supporting a strong woman.”
Social media posts then fabricated a claim about repercussions to Vedder’s comments.
“After Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder went on an anti-Harrison Butker rant, the front office at Arrowhead Stadium canceled three of the band’s upcoming shows. ‘We stand with Harrison and his admirable moral values. Vedder and his band can find somewhere else to play.[‘] The move will cost the band around $14 million,” read a May 20 Facebook post, referring to the stadium used by the Kansas City Chiefs. The post received more than 150,000 likes.
But the post was concocted by America’s Last Line of Defense, a “satire/parody” website that frequently spreads bogus stories and misinformation, as we’ve previously written. The May 20 Facebook post did not include a label identifying the content as satire.
A Kansas City Chiefs team spokesperson told us in a phone interview on May 23, “I can confirm that Pearl Jam was never scheduled to perform [at Arrowhead Stadium] this year. They were not on our concert slate.”
We reached out to Pearl Jam for comment on the claim, but we didn’t receive a response.
Sources
Associated Press. “Chiefs kicker Butker congratulates women graduates and says most are more excited about motherhood.” Updated 16 May 2024.
Caplan, Anna Lazarus. “NFL Says They Do Not Agree with Harrison Butker’s ‘Views’ in Graduation Speech, Are Committed to ‘Inclusion.’” People. 16 May 2024.
FactCheck.org. “Tag: America’s Last Line of Defense.”
Kansas City Chiefs. Arrowhead Events Schedule. Accessed 22 May 2024.
Kansas City Chiefs. Team spokesperson, phone interview with FactCheck.org. 23 May 2024.
National Catholic Register. “Full Text: Harrison Butker of Kansas City Chiefs Graduation Speech.” 16 May 2024.
Pearl Jam 2024 Tour. pearljam.com. Accessed 22 May 2024.
Sharf, Zack. “Eddie Vedder Calls Harrison Butker a ‘F–ing P–y’ Mid-Concert Over Sexist Speech: ‘There’s Nothing More Masculine Than a Strong Man Supporting a Strong Woman.’” Variety. 20 May 2024.
Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica. “Statement in Response to the 2024 Benedictine College Commencement Address.” Accessed 22 May 2024.
The Athletic. “Benedictine Sisters denounce Harrison Butker’s speech as his jersey sales rise.” New York Times. 18 May 2024.
This image of what looks like a news headline is alarming some social media users: “UN troops to be deployed across U.S. as Pentagon prepares for ‘civil unrest.’”
“This is an act of war!!” said a May 18 Instagram post sharing the image.
It was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)
We found the headline on a May 15 article on a website called “The People’s Voice,” which has previously published fake news.
That story says that “the Biden regime has agreed to allow thousands of UN troops to be deployed across the U.S. in anticipation of mass civil unrest in America” and that “the U.N. is directing the migrant crisis in America.”
But the post provides no evidence to support the claim. We looked for credible news reports to corroborate the claim and found none.
We also asked the Pentagon about the post.
In a statement, the Pentagon told PolitiFact that the story “is false.”
In a May 19 interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Sen. Marco Rubio made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about election fraud in states lost by then-President Donald Trump in 2020:
Rubio said “liberal groups” in Georgia “were paying people $10 per vote.” A conservative group made this claim in November 2021, but failed to provide evidence to state investigators.
The Florida senator claimed there were “over 500 illegal drop box locations” in Wisconsin. He apparently is referring to a state Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that said state law doesn’t allow for ballot drop boxes, but there was no evidence of fraud.
Rubio said “200,000 ballots” in Arizona had “signatures [that] didn’t match.” This allegation has been made about Maricopa County, but a state investigation found no improper procedures, no criminality and no fraud in the county’s signature-verification process.
Rubio, who is reportedly under consideration as Trump’s possible vice presidential running mate, brought up discredited claims of election fraud in the 2020 election during a lengthy exchange with “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker. After Rubio said he might not accept the results of the 2024 election, Welker played a clip of the senator on Jan. 6, 2021, saying, “Democracy is held together by people’s confidence in the election and their willingness to abide by its results.”
“So by your own definition, are Donald Trump’s claims undermining Americans’ confidence in democracy?” Welker said, referring to Trump’s repeated false claims that Democrats stole the 2020 election.
In response, Rubio said, in part: “I think what undermines people’s confidence in the election is when you have places like Wisconsin with over 500 illegal drop box locations, when you have places like Georgia where liberal groups were paying people $10 per vote.”
Let’s first take a look at the Georgia claim.
Georgia
We asked Rubio’s office where the senator got the information about the $10 payments, but we received no response. However, True the Vote, a conservative organization, filed a complaint with Georgia election officials in late November 2021 claiming to have proof of a massive “ballot trafficking scheme.” The complaint identified the group’s unnamed source as “John Doe,” who claimed participants in this operation were paid “typically at a rate of $10 per ballot.”
Catherine Engelbrecht, a founder of True the Vote, spoke about the alleged scheme in the controversial film “2000 Mules,” which was produced by conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza. As we wrote in our article “Evidence Gaps in ‘2000 Mules,’” Engelbrecht said in the film that “mules” were paid “generally $10 a ballot” for each ballot that was collected from one of the unidentified nonprofit organizations and deposited in designated drop box locations. Engelbrecht said in the film that the information about the payments came from unnamed “people who shared information with us.”
In January 2022, the Georgia State Election Board launched an investigation into True the Vote’s claim, and issued a subpoena that asked True the Vote to produce, among other things, “witness interviews” and “contact information,” including for the John Doe. After True the Vote failed to provide the information, citing confidentiality agreements with its sources, the state board sued and obtained a court order to compel the group to comply.
In May 2023, True the Vote attempted to withdraw its complaint, which the election board chairman refused to accept. In December, the group responded to the court order by saying, “TTV does not have in its possession, custody, or control such identity and contact information.” True the Vote also acknowledged that it did not have confidentiality agreements that it previously cited as a reason for not complying with the subpoena.
The state board’s investigation, which is “all but officially ‘closed,’” has produced no evidence of ballot harvesting in Georgia, Mike Hassinger, a spokesman for Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, told us in an email.
“It has uncovered zero evidence of the allegations made by True the Vote but did expose True The Vote as a mendacious and deceptive enterprise that it is untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Hassinger said. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, True The Vote’s fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked, and anyone who repeats them … is either a willful dunce or a co-conspirator.”
Wisconsin
As for Rubio’s claim that Wisconsin had “over 500 illegal drop box locations,” the senator appears to be referring to a 2022 state Supreme Court ruling that said state law does not authorize the use of ballot drop boxes.
Under state law, “absentee ballots ‘shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.’ The prepositional phrase ‘to the municipal clerk’ is key and must be given effect,” the court said in a 4-3 ruling. “An inanimate object, such as a ballot drop box, cannot be the municipal clerk.”
The ruling said Wisconsin used 528 ballot drop boxes in the 2020 general election — matching Rubio’s description of “over 500 illegal drop box locations” in the state.
But the existence of drop boxes in the 2020 election isn’t evidence of fraud.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brian Hagedorn — a conservative who ruled against Trump in other 2020 election-related rulings — said the case wasn’t about fraud, but rather how to apply the law.
“The principal issue in this case involves the lawfulness of ballot drop boxes. This case is not about the risk of fraudulent votes being cast or inspiring confidence in elections,” Hagedorn wrote. “This case is about applying the law as written; that’s it.”
Hagedorn also urged the Legislature to address the issue of drop boxes.
“[T]he election law statutes we are asked to consider are by no means a model of clarity. Many of the controlling provisions were originally enacted over 100 years ago and have been layered over with numerous amendments since,” he wrote. “Significant questions remain despite our decision in this case, especially as absentee voting has become increasingly common. Although our adjudication of this case will provide some assistance, the public is better served by clear statutes than by clear judicial opinions interpreting unclear statutes.”
Arizona
In the interview, Rubio cited Arizona as another example of why Americans are losing confidence in U.S. elections.
“They look at what happened in Arizona, 200,000 ballots that the signatures didn’t match,” he said. “People lose confidence.”
There is no evidence to support the senator’s claim that 200,000 signatures didn’t match in Arizona — let alone that those votes were fraudulent or that they were cast for Biden.
Again, the senator’s office did not respond to our questions about this and other statements he made on “Meet the Press.” However, state Republicans, including then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich, raised concerns about the signature-verification process in Maricopa County, which Biden narrowly won with 50% of the vote.
On April 6, 2022, Brnovich released an interim report on the 2020 election that questioned the county’s signature-verifying process, saying the process was “insufficient to guard against abuse.” As evidence, the report noted that the county received nearly 2 million early voting ballots in 2020, but relatively few ballots were rejected because of missing (1,455 ballots) or mismatched (587 ballots) signatures.
“We have reached the conclusion that the 2020 election in Maricopa County revealed serious vulnerabilities that must be addressed and raises questions about the 2020 election in Arizona,” the AG’s report, addressed to Senate President Karen Fann, said.
However, Brnovich’s own investigators found no improper procedures after reviewing the county’s signature-verification process, according to internal documents that weren’t released until after he left office.
Days before the report was released, the chief special agent in the AG’s Special Investigators Section sent an April 1, 2022, email to top officials in the AG’s office with the subject line “Additional Considerations for Draft Interim Report.” A marked-up copy of the draft report that was attached to the email said the Special Investigations Section, or SIS, found no evidence of fraud, noting that the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, or MCRO, followed its signature-verification process.
“(Investigators examined the policy and procedures followed by the MCRO relative to signature verification. SIS staff concluded the MCRO followed its policy/procedures as they relate to signature verification; we did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in this area during the 2020 general election),” the marked-up version of the draft report said.
That observation by investigators was not included in the interim report that was released to the public by Brnovich. It wasn’t made public until February 2023 by his successor, Kris Mayes, a Democrat.
In a March 2022 interim report summary, which was also released by Mayes, the attorney general’s SIS staff explained the county’s signature-verification process: All mail-in and drop-box ballots in Maricopa County are scanned and then those images are “run through the Signature Verification Application,” where signatures on the ballots are compared with “historical reference signatures.” Ballots without signatures or those that cannot be electronically verified are then reviewed by county election staffers in a process called “curing.”
“No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review,” the March 2022 summary said about the county’s process.
So, where did Rubio get his figure of 200,000 ballots with signatures that didn’t match? It likely came from a February 2022 “pilot study” funded by the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate. That study estimated “that more than 200,000 ballots with mismatched signatures in Maricopa were counted without being reviewed” for accuracy during the curing process — according to a report in Just the News.
The pilot study, which was done by a firm calling itself the Election Systems Integrity Institute, was based on 499 images of early voting mail ballot, or EVB, envelopes. The study compared signatures on the envelopes with signatures on public deeds.
But the pilot study didn’t claim that there were 200,000 fraudulent ballots. It said, “Based on this Study, over 204,430 early EVBs should have been cured vs. the 25,000 that the County actually cured; and, using the County’s 2.3% post-curing rate, 5,277 EVBs should have been disallowed.”
Even the 5,277 figure is an extrapolation based on this firm’s review of 499 signatures – a review that didn’t follow the same process as the county. And, as we said, state investigators reviewed the county’s signature-verification process in 2020 and found no improper procedures, no criminality and no fraud.
We’ve debunked many claims about fraud in the 2020 election, and once again, Rubio’s supposed examples don’t show evidence of any widespread illegality. In fact, his claims don’t show evidence of voter fraud at all.
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.
Former President Donald Trump can still run for the White House if he is convicted of a felony in New York. But as a Floridian, could he still vote for himself?
Trump is charged with 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. The criminal trial is unfolding in Manhattan and closing arguments are expected after Memorial Day. Trump also faces Georgia state and federal felony charges, but he is unlikely to face trials before Election Day.
Most legal experts PolitiFact interviewed said they thought it was unlikely that Trump, a Palm Beach County voter, would lose his voting rights if convicted of a felony. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of State and the media office for the Florida Commission on Offender Review did not answer our emails. It’s unlikely that state officials will address this question unless required to do because of litigation, or because an official asks for an advisory opinion.
Trump can also still run for president if he is convicted of a felony.
Here’s what we learned about Trump’s voting rights if he is convicted of a felony in New York.
Florida voters approved making it easier for felons to regain voting rights
People gather Oct. 22, 2018, around the Ben & Jerry’s “Yes on 4” truck at Charles Hadley Park in Miami. Amendment 4 restores voting rights to many felons. (AP)
The states set laws about whether felons lose their voting rights and how they can regain them. In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated.
In 23 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In some other states including Florida, felons have to meet requirements to regain voting rights, such as paying off fines, fees and restitution.
Some lawyers we interviewed pointed to uncertainties or confusion about whether Trump could lose his voting rights. Some Floridians with felony records have been tripped up by the rules. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition dropped a case against the state after the state agreed to develop rules to update the process for felons seeking advisory opinions about whether they can vote.
“As just this one instance shows, the state of Florida has made it extraordinarily difficult and some cases impossible for somebody with a criminal record to know whether they are eligible to vote,” said Nicholas Warren, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. “The rules around whether you can vote should be easy and clear to understand, and it is the obligation of the state to provide that information to everybody who wants to exercise that role.”
Florida historically has had one of the tougher procedures for felons to regain their voting rights.
In 2018, Floridians voted to restore voting rights to felons after they completed the terms of their sentence, including parole or probation, except for those charged with murder or sexual assault. Previously, felons had to ask the Florida Cabinet, which includes the governor and other statewide elected officials, whether they could regain their voting rights.
The voting rights amendment’s advocates had hoped the measure would streamline the process. But it remains messy, because the state has no easy way to determine whether felons have met all the terms of their sentence, including paying fines.
New York law says a convicted felon who is not incarcerated is eligible to register to vote
Trump faces a potential out-of-state conviction. Experts on Florida’s law pointed to the section of Florida’s Department of State website that states: “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 the right to vote for a person convicted of a felony upon release from incarceration, regardless if they are on parole or have a term of post-release supervision. Voters don’t lose their right to vote unless they are in jail serving a sentence for a felony conviction. A person whose jail sentence is stayed pending appeal does not lose their voting rights, said Kathleen R. McGrath, spokesperson for the New York State Board of Elections.
“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, an expert in felon laws and the deputy director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, the group that advocated for the felon voting rights amendment.
The ACLU of Florida’s guide to voting rights for felons states that if someone was “convicted outside of Florida, their voting rights are governed by the state where they were convicted.”
Many legal experts have expressed doubt that Trump, if convicted, will receive jail time because the charge is a nonviolent, low level felony and he has no previous convictions. One possibility is that the jury could convict him of a misdemeanor.
“I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that he’s sentenced to a term of imprisonment even if convicted, and so I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that he’s going to lose his voting rights based on anything that happens in NY,” Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School professor, told PolitiFact. (Levitt served 2021-22 as the White House’s first senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights.)
But if Trump is convicted and sentenced to prison, Levitt wrote on the Election Law Blog “I’m quite confident that there would still be a vigorous appellate process — lasting many months at a minimum — before any incarceration began, and before his right to vote in Florida were put in jeopardy.”
Jennifer Blohm, a Florida election lawyer, said she was not sure whether Trump would lose his voting rights. But she said if he did, he could go before Florida’s clemency board to have his rights restored. The Florida Cabinet serves as the clemency board.
Barry Richard, a lawyer who has represented politicians in Florida, pointed to Florida’s Constitution in Article VI Section 4 which states:
“No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability.”
Richard emphasized that sentence’s construction and the comma’s placement. That first phrase “no person convicted of a felony” does not include the phrase “in this or any other state” but the second phrase about mental incompetence does include that phrase.
Therefore, he said, someone could argue that the language was written intentionally to draw a distinction — or someone could argue it doesn’t make any sense to apply another state’s law for mental incompetence but not a felony.
“You can argue it either way,” Richard said. “I find no case law addressing the question, nothing in the legislative history indicates that there was any intention there. If he is convicted it would have to await a judicial interpretation.”
RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments
A rare risk of dangerous blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was identified and reported in early 2021. This month, the company announced it was pulling the vaccine off the market globally, citing a decline in demand. Social media posts misleadingly linked the decision to the company having “admitted” the rare side effect “for the first time” in court documents and used it to impugn all vaccines.
Full Story
The association between the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and a rare and dangerous blood clotting condition combined with low blood platelets has been known for more than three years. The condition is known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, in general, and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, when it implies an association to vaccines.
The European Medicines Agency, which regulates vaccines in the European Union, first warned of the possible link between the vaccine and “very rare cases of blood clots associated with thrombocytopenia, i.e. low levels of blood platelets” on March 18, 2021. In a statement issued that same day, the pharmaceutical company acknowledged the finding and said it “recognises and will implement” EMA’s recommendations, including updating the product information to warn about the reported cases.
A few weeks later, in April 2021, the EMA concluded the unusual blood clots “should be listed as very rare side effects” of the vaccine. TTS is included in the “possible side effects” section in the package leaflet for users for Vaxzevria (page 30), one of the brand names of the vaccine along with Covishield. TTS has also been listed in Covishield’s product insert under the “special warnings” section, as a side effect in the fact sheet for recipients since at least August 2021, and as a possible adverse reaction in an FAQ page from its manufacturer that was updated on July 5, 2021.
In September 2021, the National Health Service in England reported that the “rare condition” affected approximately 1 in 50,000 AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine recipients under 50 years old and 1 in 100,000 recipients older than 50. Between May 2021 and May 2022, there were 443 cases of TTS reported following vaccination in the U.K.; 81 of them were fatal.(In July 2021, the vaccine was also linked to rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a neurological disorder that leads to muscle weakness and, at times, paralysis. The World Health Organization said that most people recover fully.)
The vaccinewas never used in the U.S. outside clinical trials — AstraZeneca decided not to file the application for approval. Butthe vaccine was widely used in the rest of the world, especially during 2021.
In March, the European Commission withdrew AstraZeneca’s authorization to market its COVID-19 vaccine in the European Union, at the company’s request, and on May 7, the company announced it was pulling the vaccine from the market globally. Social media posts misleadingly framed the company’s recent decision as a consequence of “admitting” the rare TTS condition “for the first time” in court documents, as part of a lawsuit in the U.K. The claim was also shared in Spanish.
AstraZeneca had said the decision was based on a decline in demand. Other COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers had developed new versions to target variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. “As multiple, variant COVID-19 vaccines have since been developed there is a surplus of available updated vaccines,” the company said in a statement sent to us.
“AstraZeneca finally WITHDRAW Covid vaccine worldwide, months after the pharmaceutical giant admitted for the first time in court documents that it can cause ‘a rare and dangerous’ side effect. Never forget how they cancelled anyone who questioned its safety,” reads a viral post shared across social media platforms.
The U.K. news website the Telegraph had reported on April 28 that AstraZeneca had “admitted” its COVID-19 vaccine could cause TTS “in an apparent about-turn that could pave the way for a multi-million pound legal payout” in a class action lawsuit in which the company is being sued for “death and serious injury in dozens of cases.” The article said the company hadn’t said that in a court document before. But the story went on to say that a link between the vaccine and the rare blood clotting condition was identified in March 2021, as we said.
On May 7, the Telegraph reported that AstraZeneca was “being withdrawn worldwide, months after the pharmaceutical giant admitted for the first time in court documents that it can cause a rare and dangerous side effect.” The next day, the Independent, a British online newspaper, published a story with the headline “AstraZeneca withdraws Covid vaccine worldwide after admitting it can cause rare blood clots.”
Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at University College London, said the headlines were “needlessly scary” on her blog on May 8, and days later in an op-ed with Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist at the University of Manchester, in the New Statesman, a U.K. publication.
“Fundamentally, the situation is this: there isn’t a new ‘smoking gun’; the AZ vaccine was one of the first and cheapest vaccines; it saved millions of lives globally; and there are better vaccines out there now, adapted to new variants,” they wrote.
AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Impact
Even though the rare risk associated with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was reported early on and was well-known, some social media users took the Telegraph’s news reports as vindication.
“Now they admit it,” wrote conservative commentator Dan Bongino in a Facebook post, linking to a Rumble video titled “AstraZeneca Makes SHOCKING Admission About COVID Vax – We Were Right All Along.”
Others used the apparent news to cast shade on all other COVID-19 vaccines. “It’s not just the Astra Zeneca,” one Facebook post said.
A commenter to a post on Instagram wrote, “Whens the class action lawsuit against the US Government?,” although the vaccine was not authorized for use in the U.S. Another one wrote, “When will Pfizer finally step up and do the same?,” although the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been linked to TTS.
Just like other COVID-19 vaccines authorized or approved for use, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, co-developed by Oxford University, was found to be safe and effective for people over 18 years old in clinical trials and in further studies. The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing symptomatic disease in clinical trials was 74%, which was lower than its mRNA counterparts, namely the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
Vials of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images.
After the potentially deadly blood clot side effect was identified in 2021, many countries restricted the AstraZeneca vaccine use for only older populations. The reported TTS cases were more prevalent among those younger than 50.
Because AstraZeneca’s vaccine was cheaper and easier to distribute than other COVID-19 vaccines, it was among the first vaccines sent to poorer countries by COVAX, a global initiative that allowed for equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.
Since its rollout, more than 3 billion doses were distributed in over 180 countries, according to a 2022 statement from the vaccine developers, with approximately two-thirds of the doses going to poorer countries. A 2022 analysis by Airfinity, a disease-forecasting company, showed that the vaccine saved 6.3 million lives from December 2020 to December 2021. The company used data from a study by scientists with the Imperial College London on the global impact of COVID-19 vaccination during that year.
Vaccines in the U.S.
As we said, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was not used in the U.S. outside clinical trials.
The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, though, uses the same platform as the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both use a modified, harmless adenovirus, a type of virus that typically causes the common cold, to trigger an immune response. The J&J vaccine was granted an emergency use authorization in February 2021, but soon after, in April of that year, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported cases of TTS following the administration of the vaccine and recommended a “pause” in its use. The FDA also reported rare cases of GBS in July 2021.
The FDA limited the authorization of the J&J vaccine to certain people in May 2022, and the vaccine was ultimately discontinued in 2023. As of April 7, 2022, the CDC and FDA had confirmed 60 cases of TTS, including nine deaths, among more than 18.6 million J&J vaccines administered. In September 2023, the CDC said TTS after J&J COVID-19 vaccination “has occurred in approximately 4 cases per one million doses administered.”
The first two COVID-19 vaccines authorized and approved in the U.S., the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, are both mRNA vaccines. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were widely used in the U.S., and neither has been linked to TTS. For context, as of April 26, 2023, approximately 367 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 232 million doses of the Moderna vaccine and 19 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been administered in the country.
Both mRNA vaccines have been shown to be safe, with rare serious side effects reported, and effective at preventing severe COVID-19 disease and death. One estimate published in December 2022 suggests that COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations and 3 million deaths in the U.S.
Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Sources
“COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low blood platelets.” Press release. European Medicines Agency. 18 Mar 2021.
“UK and EU regulatory agencies confirm COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is effective and generally well-tolerated.” Statement. AstraZeneca. Updated 9 Mar 2022.
“AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine: EMA finds possible link to very rare cases of unusual blood clots with low blood platelets.” Press release. European Medicines Agency. 7 Apr 2021.
“Statement of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) COVID-19 subcommittee on reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines.” Statement. WHO. 26 Jul 2021.
Kiely, Eugene and Catalina Jaramillo. “The Facts on the Recommended J&J Vaccine ‘Pause’.” FactCheck.org. Updated 6 May 2022.
Robertson, Lori. “A Guide to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 Vaccine.” FactCheck.org. Updated 19 Apr 2024.
“AstraZeneca pulls its COVID-19 vaccine from the European market.” AP. 8 May 2024.
Robbins, Rebecca. “AstraZeneca Is Withdrawing Its Covid Vaccine Worldwide, Citing Low Demand.” New York Times. 8 May 2024.
Davey, Melissa. “AstraZeneca withdraws Covid-19 vaccine worldwide, citing surplus of newer vaccines.” The Guardian. 7 May 2024.
AstraZeneca global media team. Email to FactCheck.org. 16 May 2024.
Investigations team and Robert Mendick. “AstraZeneca admits its Covid vaccine can cause rare side effect in court documents for first time.” The Telegraph. 28 Apr 2024.
Mendick, Robert, and Patrick Sawer. “AstraZeneca withdrawing Covid vaccine worldwide.” The Telegraph. 7 May 2024.
Rai, Arpan. “AstraZeneca withdraws Covid vaccine worldwide after admitting it can cause rare blood clots.” The Indipendent. 8 May 2024.
Pagel, Christina. “The Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine saved millions of lives globally.” Diving into Data & Decision making. 8 May 2024.
Pagel, Christina and Sheena Cruickshank. “The AstraZeneca vaccine saved millions of lives – it should not be demonised.” The New Stateman. 16 May 2024.
“The Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant] vaccine) COVID-19 vaccine: what you need to know.” WHO. Updated 13 Jun 2022.
Ramasamy, Maheshi N., et al. “Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.” The Lancet. Volume 396, Issue 10267, 19 Dec 2020.
“Phase III Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AZD1222 for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Adults.” ClinicalTrials.gov. 5 Feb 2024.
Falsey, Ann R., et al. “Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 29 Sep 2021.
“Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.” American Society Hematology. 9 May 2022.
“Some countries limit AstraZeneca vaccine use, U.S. pauses J&J shot.” Reuters. 25 Mar 2021.
“Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) Support for patients family members.” NHS England. 14 Sep 2021.
Hippisley-Cox, Julia, et al. “Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study.” BMJ. 27 Aug 2021.
“AstraZeneca no longer pursuing U.S. approval for COVID vaccine.” Reuters. 10 Nov 2022.
Mallapaty, Smriti and Ewen Callaway. “What scientists do and don’t know about the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.” Nature. 25 Mar 2021.
Callaway, Ewen and Smriti Mallapaty. “Latest results put Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID vaccine back on track.” Nature. 25 Mar 2021.
“First COVID-19 COVAX vaccine doses administered in Africa.” Press release. WHO. 1 Mar 2021.
“Boosting with AstraZeneca’s vaccine provides high protection against Omicron, equivalent to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.” Press release. AstraZeneca. 8 Sep 2022.
“Oxford vaccine saved most lives in its first year of rollout.” University of Oxford. 15 Jul 2022.
“AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech saved over 12 million lives in the first year of vaccination.” Press release. Airfinity. 12 Jul 2022.
Lane, Samantha, and Saad Shakir. “Assessing Case Fatality on Cases of Thrombosis with Concurrent Thrombocytopenia Following COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) in the United Kingdom: A Review of Spontaneously Reported Data.” Drug Safety. 4 Aug 2022.
Watson, Oliver J., et al. “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study.” The Lancet. 23 June 2022.
Fitzpatrick, Meagan C., et al. “Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths.” The Commonwealth Fund. 13 Dec 2022.
Former President Donald Trump in a May 21 campaign email and social media posts falsely accused President Joe Biden of putting his life at risk in an August 2022 FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!” read an all-caps subject line on an email from Trump’s campaign.
“It’s just been revealed that Biden’s DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE for their DESPICABLE raid in Mar-a-Lago. You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable…Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger,” the email said.
Trump made similar claims in posts on Truth Social and Instagram, saying he “was shown reports” that “Biden’s DOJ” authorized the FBI to use deadly force in the Mar-a-Lago raid, calling Biden a “serious threat to democracy.”
Trump’s Republican congressional allies Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., accused Biden of planning to assassinate Trump and ordering a hit on him. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., in an X post called it a “weaponization of government” against Trump by his top political opponent.
Social media users also shared Trump’s claim about deadly force being authorized. DC_Draino, a prominent conservative X account, said in a May 22 X post with more than 800,000 views that Attorney General Merrick Garland “wanted a shootout” at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump faces 40 federal charges in a federal case over his handling of classified documents. The claim takes Trump’s rhetoric about a politicized Justice Department investigation to new levels by invoking a threat of violence. Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago during the search. He was residing in his Bedminster, New Jersey, home, and was at Trump Tower in New York when the search happened, ABC News reported.
Lawyers in Trump’s criminal trial and a campaign spokesperson did not return PolitiFact’s request for comment. Trump’s comments followed reports by the New York Post and Fox News about newly unsealed documents in the federal classified documents criminal trial.
In a February court filing, Trump’s attorneys made a motion to suppress evidence found in the search.
Trump’s attorneys in that motion referred to an FBI “operations order” that included a policy statement about the “use of deadly force.” The statement, according to Trump’s lawyers, said “law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.”
That summary of the statement is different from what the FBI said and omits language that limits when deadly force can be used.
The operations order included a policy statement on the use of deadly force, dated July 19, 2022. It said, “Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
Similar language is found on the Justice Department’s online manual and an FBI frequently asked questions webpage.
The operations order also included language saying that the Justice Department and FBI would notify Trump’s attorney the morning of the search and request collaboration and assistance. It said that the search would require coordination with the Secret Service and Mar-a-Lago guest services.
It also noted that team leaders and on-scene command should be dressed in business attire and that case agents would be dressed in business casual attire with unmarked Polo or collared shirts, and that law enforcement equipment, including weapons and handcuffs, would be concealed.
The FBI said in an emailed statement to PolitiFact that it “followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”
FBI experts told PolitiFact that law enforcement officers always have the authority to use deadly force if needed, and it’s typical for the FBI to include that written policy in an operations order, such as the Mar-a-Lago search.
The FBI also searched Biden’s home in January and the Penn Biden Center in November after Biden’s lawyers reported finding classified documents from his time as vice president. The FBI also searched former Republican Vice President Mike Pence’s Indiana home in February 2023 after Pence reported finding a small number of classified documents.
Neither Biden nor Pence were charged in those cases. It’s not clear whether operations orders were created in those cases as both searches were voluntary. The FBI did not respond to a question about those searches.
David Shapiro, a former FBI special agent and a lecturer and program director at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the “potential need to use deadly force can arise in any FBI operation,” even if it’s consensual.
He said the agents’ weapons were concealed in the Mar-a-Lago search and likely would have also been in searches of Biden’s or Pence’s homes and offices.
Luke William Hunt, a former FBI special agent and a University of Alabama associate philosophy professor, said FBI agents are law enforcement officers who carry firearms as part of their job description.
“So they’re always permitted to use deadly force in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution and internal policies,” Hunt said.
Hunt said an operations order is standard procedure when the FBI is carrying out any operation, such as a search or arrest warrant. It details everyone’s role in the plan, and there’s nothing unusual about including the FBI’s deadly force policy in the internal document.
“That’s simply to reiterate when you can and cannot use deadly force. It’s almost like a reminder,” Hunt said. “That’s just the standard deadly force policy the FBI always has and you would put that in any operations plan.”
Shapiro said language about the use of deadly force “is normally embedded in search warrants for what should be obvious reasons,” such as the “risk of conflict escalation initiated by others.”
The general policy applied to the Mar-a-Lago search as it would in any operation, Shapiro said.
“The Mar-a-Lago search was ordered to be conducted according to the policies applicable generally to FBI operations,” Shapiro said. “Agents facing a credible imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to themselves, or others, were properly advised that the Mar-a-Lago search would be executed without any exceptional limitations unnecessarily endangering themselves or others.”
Our ruling
Trump said “Biden’s DOJ” was authorized to use deadly force and was “ready to take me out” in its raid of Mar-a-Lago.
An FBI operations order Trump’s attorneys referred to in a court filing included language about the department’s deadly force policy — which Trump, his legal team and online supporters took out of context to back their claims the FBI was prepared to shoot Trump. The FBI statement said officers can use deadly force “only” when they reasonably believe they or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. This is standard protocol for search warrants. The order did not specify that Trump should be targeted; agents knew he was not at Mar-a-Lago at the time of the search.
The claim is not only wrong but ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Gun rights candidates often falsely exaggerate their opponent’s position, claiming they want to confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens. Mark R. Joslyn, professor of political science at the University of Kansas, says this is one of the reasons why gun owners generally vote more reliably than non-gun owners.
In a speech at a National Rifle Association convention on May 18, former President Donald Trump employed that very tactic, deceptively stoking fears that if President Joe Biden is reelected, the government will be “coming for your guns.” Biden has advocated a ban on so-called assault weapons, but he has not proposed confiscating ones currently owned. Trump followed it up by claiming that gun owners don’t vote as often as non-gun owners. That’s wrong.
In his 2020 book, “The Gun Gap: The influence of gun ownership on political behavior and attitudes,” Joslyn analyzed two public databases that have tracked American attitudes for decades to conclude that gun owners are more likely to vote compared with non-owners, that the gap is widening, and that the more guns one owns the more likely one is to vote.
That runs directly counter to Trump’s narrative at the NRA convention.
Trump, May 18: But one thing I’ll say, and I say it as friends, we’ve got to get gun owners to vote because you know what? I don’t know what it is — perhaps it’s a form of rebellion because you’re rebellious people, aren’t you? — but gun owners don’t vote. What is that all about? I’ve heard that. I heard it a few weeks ago. If the gun owners voted, we would swamp them at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. So I think you’re a rebellious bunch, but let’s be rebellious and vote this time. Okay?
Later in the speech, Trump reiterated the point: “And remember what I told you is so true. The gun owners don’t vote. It’s so crazy. They should be … I would think that they would vote more than any other group of people. And it’s just the opposite. They don’t vote. And they have to get out and vote.”
We reached out to the Trump campaign for backup for his claim but did not get a response.
Trump’s claim is “false,” Joslyn told us via email. “Gun owners, compared to non-gun owners, tend to vote more, not less. In addition, political participation (including voting) increases with the number of guns owned.”
Joslyn’s conclusion is based on an analysis of two databases: the General Social Survey, a comprehensive examination of American attitudes and beliefs, conducted since its creation in 1972 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and the American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford University, the University of Michigan, Duke and the University of Texas at Austin that has tracked public attitudes about elections for decades.
Photo by Bytmonas/Getty Images.
The GSS survey showed that gun owners consistently reported voting in national elections at a higher rate than non-gun owners in elections from the mid-1970s through 2016.
“Since 1996, the gap between gun owners’ and nonowners’ reported vote is about 11 percent,” Joslyn wrote in his book, which covers federal elections up to 2016. “Turnout among gun owners has increased since 1972 and peaked in 2004 and 2008 at 79 percent. In contrast, turnout declined among nonowners from a high in 1972 of 70 percent to a low of 64 percent in 1996 and 2016.”
Joslyn attempted to tease out the effect of other variables that might explain the disparity in voting behavior, other than gun ownership.
“For example, older people vote more than younger people, and gun ownership and age are positively associated,” Joslyn wrote. “Similarly, higher-income groups are more likely to vote, and income also predicts gun ownership. Race plays a role as well: Whites are more likely to own guns and participate in politics than Blacks. Education is yet another strong predictor of turnout, as is church attendance.”
Parsing those variables, Joslyn found that gun ownership had a “statistically significant effect,” albeit a modest one.
“In summary, results show that gun ownership is a significant predictor” of whether someone votes, Joslyn wrote. “It survives a multivariate test that includes strong correlates of political participation.”
Joslyn also considered that reported voting is usually higher than actual voting — in other words, people sometimes say on surveys they have voted when they really didn’t — though “there is no reason to believe that gun owners are more likely than nonowners to misreport turnout,” he said. Joslyn compared the reported levels of voting to the validated votes of gun owners and non-owners for the 2012 and 2016 presidential contests and the 2014 congressional races, as tracked by the ANES. (In ANES’ voter validation studies, “field interviewers go to local election offices and look at the office’s record of participation for each respondent.”)
While the validated vote was lower than the reported vote, Joslyn wrote, ANES similarly found that “gun owners’ validated turnout levels are higher [than for non-gun owners] and group differences remain significant. Again, this finding demonstrates the political influence of gun ownership on political behavior. A gun, of course, symbolizes many things, but in this case, it indicates Election Day participation and a willingness to affect electoral outcomes.”
Joslyn did not analyze the validated voting figures from ANES for the 2020 election, but he did analyze for us the 2020 self-reported vote, which again showed gun owners were more likely to vote — 80% of gun owners self-reported that they had voted in 2020, as opposed to 73% of non-gun owners.
“Controlling for other relevant predictors including gender, age, education, income, church attendance, and race,” gun ownership was a predictor of voter participation in 2020 — meaning “gun owners compared to non-gun owners are more likely to report voting in 2020,” Joslyn told us.
“[T]he empirical evidence … represent a strong case for gun owners as an important political group in American politics,” Joslyn wrote in “The Gun Gap.” “Gun owners represent a large group. They exhibit a distinctive vote choice and reliably show up on Election Day. As a group, they also actively engage gun organizations and politicians on gun policy. There is variation within the group. The stronger a member’s attachment to guns, the more likely he or she is to vote, and to vote for a Republican.”
Joslyn cited a number of possible reasons why gun owners vote at higher levels. According to his book:
“Their personal and group interests are often implicated in debates about gun access and use. This naturally draws their attention. A personal stake in politics is clear.
“Gun rights organizations are quick to exploit threats to owners’ interests and use them as powerful incentives to engage. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other advocates are experienced in election politics and successful in mobilizing gun interests.
“Local and state gun rights organizations are plentiful and well positioned to support turnout efforts and effectively reach gun enthusiasts and other supportive citizens.”
“The NRA recognizes gun owners’ voting calculus and repeatedly stirs the pot,” Joslyn wrote. “It arouses suspicion, raises doubts, and prompts gun owners to consider an adverse reality where guns could be confiscated and the Second Amendment challenged.”
Trump did just that in his speech at the NRA convention.
Trump, May 18: If the Biden regime gets four more years, they are coming for your guns, 100% certain. Crooked Joe has a 40-year record of trying to rip firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. He’s always wanted to do that.
That’s a distortion of Biden’s position, as we have written several times over the years.
Biden’s Position on Gun Control
Biden has long sought to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for ammunition. But he has not proposed confiscating such weapons. Rather, he has advocated a mandatory federal registry and a voluntary buyback program for all legally purchased assault weapons.
On the campaign trail, Biden often likes to tout that he signed “the first major gun legislation in over 30 years.” He’s referring to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a compromise bill that became law in June 2022 and provided $750 million for states to implement “crisis intervention court proceedings and related programs or initiatives, including but not limited to mental health courts; drug courts; veterans courts; and extreme risk protection order programs.” That last bit refers to so-called red flag laws to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. The law also extended the prohibition of guns for people convicted of domestic abuse to include dating partners, and it expanded background checks on gun purchasers between the ages of 18 and 21.
In September, Biden also created the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, and his administration has sought to — among other things — crack down on rogue gun dealers and reduce the number of guns sold without background checks. But, Biden said recently, “I think we have to do more.”
Biden said he supports national red flag laws, required safe storage of weapons and required background checks for all gun purchases.
But nothing in Biden’s record suggests Biden is “coming for your guns” and would seek to “rip firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.” Biden, who often notes that he himself owns guns, repeatedly has said he does not favor banning all guns, as he made clear in a colorful exchange with an autoworker during the presidential campaign in March 2020:
Man, March 20, 2020: You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns.
Biden: You’re full of shit. I did not—no, no, shush. Shush. I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment — just like right now if you yelled fire, that’s not free speech. And from the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt, guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapon, I’m not taking your gun away at all. You need 100 rounds?
Man: You and [former Rep.] Beto [O’Rourke] say you’re going to take our guns —
Biden: I did not say that. That’s not true. I did not say that.
Rather, Biden explained his position in Las Vegas in December, saying, “We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; pass national red flag laws … require safe storage; enact universal background checks and other commonsense measures to save lives. Because, you know, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun, you can own any weapon.”
In other words, Biden says he would seek to limit the manufacture and sale of certain guns, and he would prohibit the sale of guns to people deemed to have dangerous mental health issues. But he has never proposed confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
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.
