Category: Fact Check

  • Biden’s ‘Buy America’ Spin

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    President Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed that past presidents, including his predecessor, have “ignored” or “failed to uphold” laws requiring that federal government money be used to purchase only U.S. materials or products. Biden has expanded and emphasized such requirements, but we found no indication other presidents didn’t abide by the laws on the books during their tenures.

    Presidents of both parties have embraced the “Buy America” political messaging. Biden can lay claim to implementing broader requirements on how federal money is spent, such as those in a major infrastructure law that included $550 billion in new spending. But he goes too far in suggesting prior administrations broke the rules.

    “And, by the way, ‘Buy America’ has been the law of the land since the ‘30s, but it’s been ignored by most administrations,” Biden said on May 8 in Racine, Wisconsin. “Past administrations, including my predecessor, have failed to buy American.

    “Not anymore,” he continued. “Here’s how it works. When the pre- — when the Congress sends something to the president to build something — whether it’s a road, a highway, a deck of an aircraft carrier; whatever it is — that president is — back from a law that was passed in the ‘30s — is supposed to hire American workers to build it and use American products.”

    In Pittsburgh, in a speech at the United Steelworkers Headquarters, Biden said “very few presidents ever paid attention to” the provision in the 1930s law. “If a president is sent money from the Congress to do something for the public, he must use American products and must use American workers unless you couldn’t find them. Well, guess what? A lot of them didn’t find them, except me.”

    The president continued, “We buy America. And past administrations, including my predecessor, failed to uphold that Buy America provision. Not anymore.”

    He made similar comments in his State of the Union address in early March, and on April 24, when picking up the endorsement of North America’s Building Trades Unions. At the union event, Biden said former President “Donald Trump failed to uphold” Buy America.

    Biden is right in describing the law dating back to 1933. That act, and several subsequent laws that are often conflated with it, have required federal government money to be spent on domestic, not foreign, products — with some exceptions and waivers allowed under certain conditions, such as cost and supply issues, or prevailing trade agreements. But experts told us past presidents, including Trump, didn’t ignore these laws.

    Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told us Biden’s claim about past presidents was “a pretty egregious misstatement.”

    Scott Lincicome, the vice president of general economics and trade at the libertarian Cato Institute, told us Biden’s claim “stretches the truth.”

    “The Trump administration was quite active in trying to limit the application of Buy America waivers,” Lincicome said, “and thus make the rules more restrictive.”

    When we asked the White House about Biden’s remarks, a spokesperson pointed to the president’s efforts to expand Buy America requirements, including a proposed rule to eliminate a broad, decades-old waiver for manufactured products used in highways. One expert told us getting rid of that waiver gives Biden’s claim legitimacy, while another disagreed.

    Even if we give Biden credit for going beyond what his predecessors have done, his broad-brush comments leave the impression that presidents before him “ignored,” as he puts it, the buy-domestic provisions entirely.

    “If previous administrations had somehow violated the Buy America provision in the 1930 law, as amended, you may be sure that some domestic firm would have sued,” Hufbauer told us. “I know of no such suits.”

    We should note that economists generally are critical of these types of protectionist laws, because, they say, the restrictions increase costs, delay projects, and can lead to getting inferior or not as advanced products. And the more the U.S. pushes such laws, the more other countries implement their own buy-national rules. Both Lincicome and Hufbauer have written about such concerns.

    “Economists don’t like these things,” Lincicome told us, saying it was “one of those rare areas” where the “vast majority of economists agree.”

    In a 2020 article, Hufbauer and his Peterson Institute co-author Euijin Jung estimated the markup on domestic procurement due to restrictions on buying potentially cheaper imports. They then calculated that “the annual taxpayer cost for each US job arguably ‘saved’ by Made in America probably exceeds $250,000. We put ‘saved’ in quotation marks because buy national requirements essentially shuffle jobs from other sectors of the economy to the procurement sector.” They called such a policy of excluding imports “an economic loser.”

    But “it’s good politics and that’s what keeps it going,” Hufbauer told us.

    We’ll explain more about what these laws do and the actions of the Biden administration and past presidents.

    Buy America/American History

    In general, there are two types of these laws: those concerning materials the federal government buys itself, and those applicable to federal money granted to states and local governments for some infrastructure projects.

    Biden cites the 1933 Buy American Act, the first of these types of statutes. The law concerns federal government procurement, requiring agencies “to apply a price preference for ‘domestic end products’ and use ‘domestic construction materials’ for covered contracts performed in the United States,” as the Congressional Research Service explained in a report updated in 2022.

    There are several other laws that further the domestic-content requirements for federal purchasing, such as the Berry Amendment, which puts restrictions on Defense Department spending. “There are also a number of other domestic content restrictions that apply in specific contexts and, in many cases, are intended to address perceived gaps in the BAA,” CRS said.

    Connecticut Department of Transportation crews reconstruct a southbound Interstate 95 bridge on Nov. 5, 2023, in Westport. The work is part of a project funded by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. Photo by John Moore/Getty Images.

    Confusingly, there are also Buy America — no “n” — laws and regulations that apply to federal money given to state and local governments for some infrastructure projects. The restrictions mainly concern “highways, public transportation, aviation, and intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak,” CRS explained in another report on this family of laws. The transportation industry restrictions were first part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978.

    “Unless a nationwide or project-specific waiver is granted, Buy America generally requires the use of U.S.-made iron and steel and the domestic production and assembly of certain other manufactured goods,” CRS said. “One of the main manufacturing industries this affects is rolling stock, which includes intercity passenger rail trains, public transportation rail cars and buses, and associated equipment.”

    Though Biden only mentions the 1933 law, he’s talking about both Buy America and Buy American provisions.

    There are exceptions under these laws for purchasing foreign goods, including when the domestic products are too expensive, in short supply in the U.S., or when adhering to the requirements would be against the “public interest,” as Cato’s Lincicome explained in a February 2023 commentary piece. Under a 1979 law, presidents can also grant waivers if the restrictions would discriminate against countries that are in trade agreements with the U.S.

    Changes Under Trump, Biden

    Some of the details of the Buy America/American requirements have changed over time. The 1933 government procurement law called for the use of only “unmanufactured” materials that had been “mined or produced” in the U.S. and only “manufactured” items that had been made in this country “substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States.” As Lincicome wrote, “substantially all” used to mean 50% of the value of the items were from U.S. materials. The Trump administration increased the threshold to 55% in a rule, finalized late in his administration, that reflected a 2019 executive order. That rule also said for items manufactured from iron and steel, the cost of foreign iron and steel must be under 5% of the total product cost.

    So, contrary to Biden’s claims, Trump tightened the requirements related to the 1930s law.

    Biden, however, upped the general domestic content threshold again, to 60%. Under the October 2022 final rule, the threshold is set to increase further to 65% this year and 75% in 2029, though the final rule says the cut-off can go back to 55% through the end of 2029 if “no domestic products can meet the new thresholds or the cost to acquire them would be unreasonable,” the Office of Management and Budget’s Made in America Office, which Biden also created, explains.

    The new Made in America Office has a website that includes all Buy America/American waiver requests and whether they have been reviewed yet. In addition to providing some transparency about the waivers, the site says it aims “to maximize opportunities for U.S. producers to supply goods and services to the federal government.”

    There are more than 1,100 waivers listed, the vast majority of them requested due to “nonavailability” of the product in the U.S. But that doesn’t help us fact-check how this compares with past administrations or whether presidents have skirted these laws. Experts told us there’s no database or repository that could measure how much one administration “bought American” compared with another.

    A Government Accountability Office report on fiscal year 2017 found that while waivers and exceptions were used, the federal government didn’t buy a lot of foreign products. Using federal procurement data for that year, the GAO determined that “foreign end products accounted for less than 5 percent—about $7.8 billion—of federal obligations for products potentially subject to the Buy American Act,” noting that the amount could be higher due to errors in the data.

    As Lincicome put it, the GAO “said, yeah these waivers happen but they’re not the exception that’s eating the rule.”

    Trump used “Buy American, Hire American” as a campaign slogan in 2016, and a few months into his presidency, he signed an executive order with that name, saying “every agency shall scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply with Buy American Laws, to the extent they apply, and minimize the use of waivers, consistent with applicable law.” In 2018, he signed a bipartisan water infrastructure law that extended for five years requirements that only U.S. iron and steel be used in projects funded by a state revolving fund.

    The restrictions on funding for transit projects also tightened just before Trump took office, Alon Levy, a research fellow with the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management’s transportation and land-use program, told us. Levy said, “The decision was not made by political appointees but by career civil servants who were anticipating a more protectionist direction in federal policy,” under the incoming Trump administration.

    “This is not about upholding provisions, though,” they said. “Buy America has an escape clause, allowing federally-funded projects to import if there’s no American substitute, or if the American substitute is too expensive, at least 25% more expensive than the import. However, to exercise the escape clause, agencies need to apply for a waiver — it’s not automatic.

    “Traditionally, federal waivers were granted as per the law, but during the Obama-Trump transition, FTA stopped processing the waiver requests,” Levy said, referring to the Federal Transit Administration. “This policy has been maintained under Biden.”

    Levy, who is also a critic of the Buy America policies, said “federal agencies have already acted as if the law is more restrictive than it actually is,” dating back to that Obama-Trump transition. And restrictions have gotten tighter during Biden’s administration “because the supply chain crisis created a backlog” of waiver requests. (In a 2021 article, Levy said Buy America was “harmful” and should be repealed, detailing the impact on U.S. mass transit and what they said were “[t]oo few jobs” created at too high a cost.)

    Under Biden, the Build America Buy America Act, which was part of the 2021 infrastructure law, expanded how Buy America pertains to federal infrastructure grants. The law says all infrastructure projects that are federally funded must use iron, steel, manufactured products and other construction materials that are made in the U.S., with waivers available for public interest, supply and cost issues. (See this explainer by the Bipartisan Policy Center for more.)

    Typically, the Buy America laws covered transportation and water infrastructure, but the Build America Buy America provision goes beyond that to include any infrastructure construction. And in addition to covering “the usual iron/steel products,” Lincicome wrote, the act pertains to “nonferrous metals (e.g., copper), plastic‐ and polymer‐based products, glass, composite building materials, lumber, and drywall.”

    Hufbauer noted that previous presidents “didn’t have huge projects like this” — except for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under former President Barack Obama. That 2009 stimulus act also included requirements that “all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods” in public projects be domestic, with the usual exceptions. Hufbauer also said that previous presidents “weren’t tight on requiring states to follow Buy America rules when they spent the money.”

    Biden “did change the way things are done,” he said, but Biden’s claim that others were “breaking the law … is a misstatement.”

    Also under Biden, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which includes funding for renewable energy projects, offers a bonus for projects that meet domestic content restrictions.

    Lincicome told us “it’s fair to say” that the Biden administration has tried to reduce the exceptions to Buy America rules. “But Trump did the same type of stuff,” and it’s hard to determine the impact of Biden’s efforts thus far. “You can kind of tell how effective [it has been] by how much people are complaining,” he said, “and people are complaining,” referring to industry players and state transportation departments and others that have to deal with these rules.

    When we asked the White House press office about the president’s comments about past administrations, White House spokesperson Robyn M. Patterson sent us a statement saying: “Since his first week in office, President Biden has worked tirelessly to build a future Made in America – including by signing Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers, and establishing the Made in America Office at the Office of Management and budget and launched a whole-of-government initiative to strengthen the use of taxpayers’ dollars to support American manufacturing.”

    Patterson also referred to a proposed rule by the Biden administration to do away with a longtime waiver for federally funded highway projects that said manufactured products that don’t contain steel and iron are exempt from Buy America provisions. Examples of such manufactured products include traffic signals and controllers, and vehicle detection equipment. Patterson said “the previous administration continued a sweeping, Reagan-era Buy America waiver for manufacturing products in federal-aid highway projects and failed to carry out longstanding grants guidance which encouraged the purchase of domestic products.”

    The proposed rule’s comment period ended on May 13.

    The waiver has been in place since 1983, when the Federal Highway Administration cited “public interest” reasons for the exception, saying the products affected by the waiver made up only a small percentage of highway projects. “Due to the Manufactured Products General Waiver, manufactured products permanently incorporated into FHWA-funded projects do not need to be produced domestically, apart from predominantly iron or steel manufactured products and predominantly iron or steel components of manufactured products,” the proposed rule says.

    A former House transportation committee staff member told us there has been an effort on Capitol Hill over the years to get rid of that waiver, but no one has done it. If this is what Biden means in talking about past administrations not upholding the law, the former staffer said, it’s a legitimate claim.

    But Hufbauer said the proposed rule still doesn’t back up Biden. “Previous administrations were perfectly entitled to invoke the [FHWA] waiver,” he told us. “Nothing wrong with that. They did that to save taxpayer money and speed up projects.”

    Biden can claim that his administration has taken several steps to increase the use of domestic products in federal and federally funded projects, but that doesn’t mean that past administrations have “ignored” or “failed to uphold” Buy America/American laws.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Source

  • Fact Check: Beyoncé wasn’t banned from the Grand Ole Opry

    The Grand Ole Opry has a complicated history with Black musicians, but has the Nashville, Tennessee, country mecca really banned Beyoncé?

    That’s what a May 19 Facebook post’s caption claims, saying, “Breaking News: The Grand Ole Opry Bans Beyoncé For Life, “‘Go Play Dress-Up, You’re Not Country.’”

    But the release of Beyoncé’s new country-inspired album, “Cowboy Carter,” has not prompted a ban from the Grand Ole Opry, a storied live music venue.

    It has inspired many fake claims, such as this one we’ve already checked claiming that “Jay-Z paid more than $20 million to country radio stations to play Beyoncé songs so she’d top the Billboard country charts.”

    That story originated on a self-described satire site, and so did this claim about an Opry ban.

     

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

    The post’s caption also says “full story” with two emojis pointing toward comments containing a link under a photo of Beyoncé, the Grand Ole Opry and a repeat of the lifetime ban claim.

    The link led to a May 15 post on a site titled “DM Newsfeed,” which said the Grand Ole Opry had decided her “musical style and image” were “incompatible with the Opry’s definition of country music.”  

    But this story was poached from another blog — “Esspots” — which identified the article as “satire.” The site describes itself as “your one-stop destination for satirical news and commentary.” The Facebook post reshared the story without the satire label.

    In the real world, we found no evidence that the Opry banned Beyoncé — no credible news stories, no statements or press releases from the Opry, and no heated social media debate.

    We rate claims that Beyoncé was banned from the Opry Pants on Fire!

     



    Source

  • Partisans Distort Proposed MOMS Act and Website for Pregnancy Resources

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Republican Sen. Katie Britt has introduced a bill that would create a government website to help connect pregnant people with resources, excluding abortion services. Some Democrats and partisan websites have misleadingly claimed the proposed law would create a federal database of pregnant people. The bill doesn’t require users to provide any personal information.


    Full Story

    As Republicans face an uphill battle on their restrictive abortion policies for the 2024 election, GOP Sen. Katie Britt — who opposes abortion — has introduced a bill that she says seeks to support pregnant women.

    But critics have spun the draft legislation into a claim that the senator from Alabama is proposing a government-run database that could track pregnant people.

    The bill — called the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act, or MOMS Act — has three sections:

    • The first would create a website called Pregnancy.gov that would list “relevant resources” to pregnant people and parents of young children, including health services (not including abortion), nutrition assistance, and recovery and mental health services.
    • The second would offer grants to organizations that provide prenatal and post-natal services — such as housing assistance, adoption services, and child care assistance — and to organizations that would use telehealth to improve prenatal and post-natal health care to people in remote or underserved areas.
    • The third would require states to impose child-support payments through pregnancy.

    Within days of the bill’s introduction, partisan media outlets, including the MeidasTouch Network and HuffPost, panned the proposal, misleadingly claiming that it would create a federal database of pregnant people.

    Some Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, also opposed the bill. In a statement issued on May 13, they characterized the bill as a means to “push anti-abortion propaganda” through “a new government-run website to collect data on pregnant women and direct them to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and other ‘resources’ to pressure women into carrying pregnancies to term, no matter their circumstances.”

    And posts have proliferated on social media, repeating the claim that Britt had proposed creating a “national database of pregnant women.”

    But the bill includes no such proposal.

    The claim appears to be based on the first section of the bill, which would create a new government-run website. But nowhere in the text of the proposed law does it say that people who use the site would be required to enter their personal information. Rather, it says that users would be able to opt in to give their contact information and receive follow-up emails or phone calls with “additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review.”

    The bill doesn’t specify where or for how long the contact information provided by users would be kept, so we asked Britt’s spokesman Sean Ross for further details. He pointed out that the website would function under existing federal privacy guidelines.

    “Nothing in this bill alters existing federal data privacy laws or regulations related to government agencies, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act, and existing HHS regulations,” Ross said in an email, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services.

    He also highlighted existing rules for websites maintained by the HHS, which Britt’s proposed website would follow.

    “Submitting personally identifiable information (PII) such as name, address, telephone number, email address, etc. is voluntary and is not required to access information on our website,” the HHS privacy policy says. “We retain the information only for as long as necessary to respond to your question or request, in most cases no longer than three months. We maintain and destroy information submitted electronically as required by the Federal Records Act and the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) records schedules. It may be subject to disclosure in certain cases (for example, if required by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, court order, or Congressional access request, or if authorized by a Privacy Act SORN).”

    The bill doesn’t mention anything about creating a database with users’ personal information.

    It does say that within six months of the site’s launch, the secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to report to Congress on website traffic and feedback. The bill specifies that “the report … shall not include any personal identifying information regarding individuals who have used the website.”

    So, the bill proposes listing pregnancy-related services, except for those involving abortion, on a website where users could choose to share their contact information in order to get more customized results. It does not describe the creation of a nationwide database detailing the whereabouts of pregnant people.


    Sources

    Kight, Stef. “Senate GOP pushes bill to provide support to pregnant women, moms.” Axios. 9 May 2024.

    Hassan, Maggie. Press release. “Senators Hassan, Collins, Britt, Smith Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Expand Access to Maternal Health Care.” 3 Apr 2024.

    Kamarck, Elaine. “Abortion and the 2024 election: There is no easy way out for Republicans.” Brookings Institution. 17 Apr 2024.

    U.S. Senate. “S. 4296, A Bill To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide more opportunities for mothers to succeed, and for other purposes.” (as introduced 9 May 2024).

    Murray, Patty. Press release. “Senate Democratic Women Respond to New Senate Republican Legislation to Collect Data on Pregnant Women Through New Government Website, Push Anti-Abortion Propaganda.” 13 May 2024.

    Ross, Sean. Spokesman, Sen. Katie Britt. Email to FactCheck.org. 17 May 2024.

    Source

  • Fact Check: Will Joe Biden’s new China tariffs “hit every family”?

    President Joe Biden recently said the United States would sharply increase tariffs on some Chinese goods, including electric vehicles, semiconductors and solar panels.

    The White House said the move — which echoes some of the trade-war agenda of Biden’s predecessor, former President Donald Trump — aims to protect American industries’ competitiveness in the growing clean energy sector and curb unfair trade practices by China.

    In a May 14 X post, Biden said he had “imposed a series of tariffs on goods made in China: 25% on steel and aluminum, 50% on semiconductors, 100% on EVs (electric vehicles), and 50% on solar panels. China is determined to dominate these industries. I’m determined to ensure America leads the world in them.” And in remarks at the White House that day, he called the tariffs “strategic and targeted.”

    But not everyone approved. 

    Democratic Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado, labeled the decision “horrible news for American consumers” and a “major setback for clean energy.”

    “Tariffs are a direct, regressive tax on Americans, and this tax increase will hit every family,” Polis wrote as he reshared Biden’s post.

    Is Polis right? 

    Experts say the tariffs could amount to a tax increase on many Americans. But they add that the notion that “every” American family will be hit is likely exaggerated.

    “When it comes to these specific tariffs, the short-term effects may be limited,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “Very few Chinese-made electric vehicles are sold in the U.S. today, so there will be little direct effect. And Chinese aluminum and steel accounts for only a small fraction of US imports of those goods. … So the price effects will be small.”

    Polis’ office did not provide information for this fact-check.

    Why Biden is imposing tariffs on about $18 billion of China’s imports

    A tariff is a government tax imposed on goods and services imported from other countries. Countries often impose tariffs in the name of making their domestic companies more competitive with foreign counterparts; the tariffs either make the foreign items more expensive, putting them at a disadvantage in the marketplace, or they make foreign companies forgo entering the market at all.

    Biden’s new round of tariffs apply to about $18 billion of annual imports from China, the White House said. Other Chinese goods that will face higher tariffs include batteries, battery components, certain minerals, cranes used at ports, certain medical products, steel and aluminum.

    Under the new standard, the tariff rate for Chinese-produced electric vehicles will rise from 25% to 100% this year, while semiconductor tariffs will double from 25% to 50% by 2025. Tariffs on lithium-ion batteries, a key component of EVs, will increase from 7.5% to 25%. Tariffs on solar panels will rise from 25% to 50%. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will increase from 0% to 25%.

    In pursuing the new tariffs, Biden has regularly accused China of flooding the global market with goods at what the White House calls “artificially low” prices. The White House says the Chinese government heavily subsidizes the nation’s companies, which allows Chinese competitors to overproduce because they don’t have to worry about turning a profit.

    “When you make tactics like these, it’s not competition, it’s cheating, and we’ve seen the damage here in America,” Biden said while announcing the tariffs at the White House Rose Garden.

    Trump, Biden’s expected 2024 presidential opponent, also pursued an aggressive tariff policy during his presidency to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese imports and narrow the trade deficit. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods totaled about $300 billion. Biden criticized those tariffs during his 2020 presidential run, arguing that they had little impact on consumers compared to the costs to Americans.

    Who foots the bill for tariffs?

    Polis’ first point is that tariffs amount to a tax on consumers. There’s significant evidence to support that.

    Multiple studies, reports and economists have concluded that if tariffs are high enough, foreign companies will typically pass much of the added cost to consumers in the tariff-levying country. 

    After Trump imposed his tariffs, importers passed along most or all of the costs to consumers or to producers who use Chinese materials in their products, studies show. A U.S. International Trade Commission review found the tariffs were paid primarily by U.S. importers while prices for Chinese exporters were “largely unaffected.”

    “In general, tariffs are passed on to consumers,” Gleckman said. “Not only do the prices of the tariffed goods usually increase, but so do prices of competing domestic products. Without low-priced foreign competition, domestic manufacturers are free to raise their own prices.”

    Another problem with tariffs, Gleckman said, is that they encourage producers to move production to a nontariffed country. “So Biden may be protecting U.S. automakers from China, but what about, say, Brazil or Mexico?” he said.

    And because studies have shown that lower-income Americans tend to spend a larger fraction of their income on goods, they could feel the pinch from tariffs more acutely than more affluent Americans would, as Polis said.

    “The consensus has not changed: Tariffs are regressive, in that the people with lowest means will be paying the most when a tariff is placed on a good,” said Ross E. Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist who specializes in trade policy.

    How many Americans could be affected by the Biden tariffs?

    However, Polis’ second point, that “every family” will be affected by the Biden tariffs, is exaggerated, experts said.

    For starters, Burkhart said, electric vehicles “are still a niche product” that not every family will look to buy soon. And even within this niche market, Chinese EVs have almost no U.S. market share. According to the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, China shipped $368 million in EVs to the U.S. in 2023, a tiny fraction of the $7.4 billion shipped by European Union nations the same year.

    Meanwhile, although steel, aluminum, and semiconductors are widely used throughout the economy, the new tariffs are levied narrowly at products from China, said Katheryn N. Russ, a University of California, Davis economist. 

    “Most steel from China already is subject to high prices,” Russ said. “The effect of a narrowly targeted tariff like this may be modest if producers can switch to suppliers in other countries, and domestic producers of these products still will be subject to price competition from other countries who are not facing a similar hike in the tariff.”

    In any case, such materials “tend to be small input prices of finished goods, and Chinese exports of both products to the U.S. are generally declining,” said Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, an advocacy group comprising U.S. manufacturers and the United Steelworkers. “In a $25 trillion economy these very targeted measures won’t even be felt in a meaningful way.”

    The White House is making much the same argument. In discussions with journalists during the run-up to announcing the new tariffs, Biden administration officials argued that their more targeted tariffs would be less likely to increase consumer prices — a crucial concern both economically and politically, given the high inflation during much of Biden’s term.

    Our ruling

    Polis called tariffs a “direct, regressive tax on Americans” and said Biden’s new tariffs on Chinese goods will “hit every family.”

    There is widespread academic support for the notion that tariffs raise prices for consumers, and that lower-income consumers tend to be hurt disproportionately.

    However, experts said the targeted nature of Biden’s tariffs on China’s clean energy sector should limit their inflationary effect, making it unlikely that “every family” would be affected in a significant way.

    We rate the statement Half True.



    Source

  • Social Media Posts Circulate Altered Image of Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Adult film star Stormy Daniels recently testified at the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, who is charged with falsifying records during his 2016 campaign to conceal an affair with Daniels. Social media posts falsely claim to show evidence of the affair by sharing a fake, digitally altered photo of Donald and Melania Trump with Daniels.


    Full Story

    The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president is winding down in a Manhattan courtroom, where Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to keep extramarital affairs from becoming public during his 2016 presidential campaign.

    The trial, which began April 15, has included the testimony of adult film star Stormy Daniels, who described her sexual encounter with Trump and $130,000 in payments she received from attorney Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump as part of an agreement not to disclose their relationship. The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied having an affair with Daniels.

    Social media users have weighed in with their own purported evidence of Trump’s relationship with Daniels. A May 16 Instagram post, which has received more than 5,000 likes, purports to show an image of Donald and Melania Trump with Daniels, all of them in formal wear, and text that reads: “A Bible salesman, his pregnant wife, and the woman he never ever ever ever met, but paid her $130,000 for something they never ever ever ever did…..”

    A Facebook post shares the same image and text, with the caption: “Boooooooom (I got the receipts).”

    But the “receipts” aren’t real. The picture shared in the posts was digitally altered using two photos to create a fake composite image. The original photo of the Trumps showed them with Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka in a Daily Mail article, photographed at a 2005 event. The photo of Daniels was lifted from coverage of a 2009 awards show.

    The Snopes fact-checking website debunked posts that shared the same manipulated image in 2018.

    Testimony in Trump’s criminal trial may wrap up and the jury could begin deliberations the week of May 20.


    Sources

    Associated Press. “Trump hush money trial: A timeline of key events in the case.” 13 May 2024.

    Bustillo, Ximena. “Trump’s New York criminal trial could head to jury deliberation as soon as next week.” NPR. 16 May 2024.

    Evon, Dan. “Donald Trump, Melania Trump, and Stormy Daniels?” Snopes. 21 Mar 2018.

    Michallon, Clemence. “Donald Trump called his pregnant wife Melania ‘a monster’ and ‘a blimp’ just two months after ‘grab them by the p***y’ comments.” Daily Mail. 9 Oct 2016.

    Reiss, Adam, et al. “Stormy Daniels spars with Trump’s lawyer during hush money trial testimony.” NBC News. 9 May 2024.

    Sisak, Michael R., et al. “Trump charged with 34 felony counts in hush money scheme.” Associated Press. 4 Apr 2023.

    Supreme Court of the State of New York. “The People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump.” 4 Apr 2023.

    Source

  • Fact Check: Joe Biden didn’t set up Donald Trump with classified documents

    A conservative podcaster said that the Biden administration framed former President Donald Trump by shipping boxes of classified documents to his home. But that’s false.

    During a May 1 Facebook livestream of “The Benny Show” podcast, host Benny Johnson claimed: “Those classified documents, those stolen documents, the nuclear codes’” he said, gesturing with air quotes, “they were all placed there by the government.” He added: “The government had possession of them, and they shipped them to Trump. … They are planting the evidence.”

    The livestream’s caption claimed Biden was responsible: “Bombshell: Biden had pallets of classified docs sent to Mar-a-Lago before FBI raid!. Trump was setup.”

    The Facebook video 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, Threads, and Instagram.)

    PolitiFact messaged Johnson by email and through an online contact form for “The Benny Show,” but received no response.

    Similar claims to Johnson’s have surfaced on TikTok. One post claimed Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents, “redacted this information knowing it shows that Biden could have sent the documents to Trump instead of Trump taking the documents.”

    This claim is not new: Trump said in a 2022 Fox News interview that he wasn’t responsible for the classified documents found at his Florida home because the General Services Administration shipped them there, giving the impression that the agency knew its contents and was culpable. (The General Services Administration is a federal agency, composed of civil servants, that handles presidential transition logistics.)

    But this claim has been debunked by news outlets after a review of emails, between Trump’s transition team and the civil servants, which Bloomberg News obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

    PolitiFact also read the emails related to the documents’ packing and transportation. The emails show the agency did not pack the boxes, but rather handled shipping costs from a warehouse just outside of Washington, D.C., to Palm Beach, Florida.

    It is unclear from the emails whether the items shipped contained classified documents. However, in the emails, the General Services Administration’s officials told Trump transition officials that if they had items that were “considered property of the Federal Government then it should go to NARA or GSA.” (NARA stands for National Archives and Records Administration.)

    Boxes of records from the indictment against former President Donald Trump sit Nov. 12, 2021 in a storage room at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. (Justice Department via AP)

    In a statement, the General Services Administration told PolitiFact: “Consistent with the typical division of responsibilities between GSA and outgoing Presidents, members of the outgoing presidential transition team and their volunteers were responsible for packing items from the outgoing transition space into boxes. … GSA did not examine the contents of the boxes and, accordingly, had no knowledge of the contents prior to shipping.”

    Aside from logistics concerning shipment, the emails also show the General Services Administration officials discussing with Trump’s team the limitations on the use of public funds. In one exchange, officials declined to pay for the shipment of a large portrait of Trump because that was considered “personal property.”

    The Presidential Transition Act, which governs the presidential transfer of power, allows the General Services Administration to serve the outgoing team for seven months, which ended July 21, 2021, for Trump.

    The emails show that the Trump transition team signed a memorandum of understanding with the General Services Administration on Jan. 11, 2021, and the team was allocated about $2 million to pay for the logistics and other services needed for “concluding the affairs of their terms of office.”

    General Services Administration’s role in presidential transitions

    The General Services Administration is “at the heart of presidential transition,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, emeritus professor of political science at Towson University and director of the White House Transition Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group of presidency scholars. 

    “GSA would be involved in getting the office space, making sure that the nominated candidates … have their space and that the spaces are secure. They provide supplies and technology,” she said. But when it comes to presidential records, that role belongs to the National Archives, she added.

    Trump’s Florida charges

    The FBI searched  Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, estate, Aug. 8, 2022, after the National Archives and Records Administration’s repeated attempts to retrieve classified documents from Trump proved futile.

    In June 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents. It is unclear when the case will go to trial, and it’s possible it won’t be before Election Day, Nov. 5.

    Our ruling

    Johnson claimed, “Bombshell: Biden had pallets of classified docs sent to Mar-a-Lago before FBI raid! Trump was setup.”

    Email records do not show that Biden was involved in shipping boxes of documents to Mar-a-Lago.

    We rate the claim that Biden set up Trump with classified documents sent to his Florida home False.

    RELATED: Read all of PolitiFact’s coverage on Donald Trump indictments



    Source

  • Fact Check: Tammy Baldwin – Yes, millions of young Americans got health care because of Baldwin’s Affordable Care Act efforts

    “When I worked on the Affordable Care Act, I wrote the amendment that allows all young people to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. Overnight, millions of young Americans got healthcare.”

    Source

  • Fact Check: Don’t get clowned! Apple isn’t getting rid of the clown emoji. That headline is fake.

    It’s not unusual to be afraid of clowns — but are Apple executives so scared they are getting rid of the clown emoji?

    According to a screenshot of a CNBC headline shared May 15 on X, “Upcoming Apple device update set to remove clown emoji: sources say emoji used as a Far-Right ‘dog whistle.’”


    (Screenshot from X post)

    But this headline is fake.

    The image appears to be an edited screenshot of a real CNBC story about McDonald’s. The author and time stamp match, but the original headline was replaced. A CNBC spokesperson confirmed to PolitiFact that the article about the clown emoji was never published on CNBC.com.

    The first iteration of the altered image appears to have been shared at 3:27pm on May 15 on patriots.win, a pro-Donald Trump message board. Then it was shared by conservative X account DC_Draino, which later deleted the post. The false headline sparked real outrage from many X users at Apple.

    The clown emoji is frequently used to express humor or self-deprecation or to mock other people online. But it is not considered a hate symbol, such as those tracked in an Anti-Defamation League database.

    Apple has changed emojis before, most famously swapping out the black pistol emoji for a green squirt gun in 2016. But we found no authentic reporting that Apple plans to get rid of the clown emoji on their devices.

    CNBC never reported that Apple is “set to remove clown emoji” because it is a “far-right dog-whistle.” The image of the headline was digitally altered. We rate this viral image Pants on Fire!



    Source

  • Fact Check: Was Lyme disease spread as a bioweapon? No, that theory is Pants on Fire!

    People contract Lyme disease through tick bites. But was the disease spread by the government, as former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson wrote on Instagram? 

    “In the late 1960s, government bioweapons labs started injecting ticks with exotic diseases,” Carlson wrote in a May 9 Instagram caption. “Soon, people nearby began to get those diseases. Now, tick-borne Lyme is endemic. Naturally, the government has admitted nothing.” 

    Contrary to Carlson’s claim, experts said Lyme disease has proliferated in recent decades because of environmental factors — not because the government spread the disease as a bioweapon.  

    Carlson’s post shows clips of him interviewing author Kris Newby on his online show, “Tucker Carlson Uncensored.” The Instagram post’s caption has a link to Carlson’s website, where there’s a longer video of the interview.

    In the Instagram clip, Newby said, “Lyme disease wasn’t a problem until the peak of the biological weapons program in the U.S., the mid-’70s.” 

    Newby added that during this peak, “three freaky diseases” showed up, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, babesia (a parasite that causes babesiosis) and Lyme arthritis, which Lyme disease triggers. 

    “So, you have a cluster of these three previously rare diseases right across the water from the U.S. government’s biological weapons testing facility, is that what you’re saying?” Carlson said in the clip.

    Newby said, “This is the perfect stealth weapon, it’s poor man’s nuke.” She later added, “If we’re going to play God and make these new germs inside ticks, there could be blowback.”

    The Instagram 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.)

    Tucker Carlson Network did not answer PolitiFact’s request for comment. 

    Newby wrote about the theory that biological weapons caused Lyme disease’s spread in her 2019 book, “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons.” Newby told PolitiFact in a May 14 email, “I have never said Lyme is a bioweapon, but the U.S. weaponized ticks, which turbo-charged its spread.” 

    But Lyme disease experts told PolitiFact the theory that the U.S. government spread Lyme disease is scientifically unsound. 

    The United States had a biological weapons program from 1942 to 1969. Conspiracy theories about Lyme disease’s origins have been circulating for decades, but Lyme disease bacterium existed long before the bioweapons program began. 

    Experts also said biological weapons research did not cause the doubling of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. since 1991. 

    The disease became endemic in the U.S. in the 1970s because of a warming climate and changing landscapes from suburbanization, which sparked an increase in ticks that carry the disease and the animals they feed on, specifically white-tailed deer, said Katharine Walter, an assistant epidemiology professor at the University of Utah and a researcher who estimated the Lyme disease bacterium’s age. 

    Maria Diuk-Wasser, a professor in Columbia University’s Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology Department, said that at the same time, people began living closer to deer populations that carried the disease, which spurred its spread in the last 50 years.  

    People contract Lyme disease when bitten by a tick carrying Borrelia burgdorferi, a bacterium. Although the disease was first identified in 1976 in Lyme, Connecticut, researchers led by Yale University’s School of Public Health found in 2017 that the bacterium that causes Lyme disease has existed for at least 60,000 years. And Walter said illnesses consistent with Lyme disease were found in several locations well before the Connecticut discovery, including in Ötzi, also known as “the Iceman,” a 5,000-year-old mummy found in the Tyrol Alps near the Austria-Italy border. 

    Lyme disease-infected people can experience a rash, fever, muscle aches, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes. Left untreated, the symptoms can worsen and spark vision loss, facial palsy, irregular heartbeat, nerve pain, muscle weakness and arthritis.  

    But Lyme disease is rarely fatal. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 11 people worldwide died from the disease from 1985 to 2019. 

    In a longer version of the Instagram clip, Newby said that a Lyme disease outbreak emerged in Connecticut in the late 1960s, across from the U.S. headquarters for the biological weapons program on Plum Island in New York. 

    But Andrea Love, executive director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, said Plum Island “had no capacity or infrastructure in place to work with human pathogens.” She added that Plum Island researchers studied African swine fever virus, a tick-borne disease that doesn’t affect humans. 

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said Plum Island research was used to prevent foreign animal diseases, primarily foot-and-mouth disease, which is spread among domestic animals and doesn’t threaten humans. 

    Further, Diuk-Wasser said, Lyme disease would be a “terrible bioweapon” because the bacteria and ticks grow very slowly, need specific habitats to survive and are transferred through tick bites, which have a slower transmission rate than diseases spread through other means, such as respiratory viruses. 

    Love agreed with Diuk-Wasser that Lyme disease would make a poor biological weapon. 

    “Infection only occurs via the bite of an infected tick of certain tick species (and only after feeding for at least 24 hours),” Love said. “More than that, it is almost never fatal.”

    Our ruling

    Tucker Carlson said in an Instagram caption that Lyme disease became endemic because of U.S. government bioweapons labs. 

    The bacterium that causes Lyme disease is at least 60,000 years old and existed long before the U.S. bioweapons program. Scientists have observed suspected cases of Lyme disease in several locations well before the first identified case of the disease in the 1970s, including in a 5,000-year-old mummy near the Austria-Italy border. 

    Lyme disease became endemic in the U.S. in the 1970s because of suburbanization and a warming climate, which increased both ticks carrying the Lyme disease bacterium and the number of animals, such as the white-tailed deer, on which the ticks feed. Humans also began living closer to these animal populations, spurring the disease to spread more rapidly. 

    Experts also said Lyme disease would make a poor bioweapon because of its low fatality rate and its transmission through ticks. 

    We rate the claim Pants on Fire! 

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.



    Source

  • Fact Check: No proof Barbara O’Neill’s cousin ‘was sentenced to life in prison’

    Barbara O’Neill, a former Australian naturopath, was banned by New South Wales authorities from providing health services in 2019. A viral Facebook video claims one of her relatives has been prosecuted for carrying on that work.

    The May 11 video begins with an image of an unnamed woman in an orange jumpsuit standing in a courtroom. The image’s text read, “They are hiding the fact that Barbara O’Neill’s cousin was sentenced to life in prison for revealing these gatekept health secrets.”

    The video follows with images of plants and nuts along with claims of their natural healing properties. Text on the video directs viewers to a website to buy products including capsules and oils made from the plants.

    The Facebook video 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, Threads, and Instagram.)

    Barbara O’Neill is an Australian author whom the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission permanently banned from providing health services in 2019. The commission said O’Neill was unregistered and her advice, which included using baking soda to cure cancer, had “huge potential to have a detrimental effect on the health of individuals.”

    We found no news reports about O’Neill’s unnamed cousin being sentenced to prison. O’Neill’s active social media accounts have not posted about this. PolitiFact emailed Barbara O’Neill through addresses on her websites but received no answer.

    Artificial intelligence generated the image of the unnamed woman in the video. One giveaway is the woman’s missing eyelashes; AI-generated images often lack human features or distort them. A reverse-image search yielded only one news report —  a Lead Stories fact-check  rating the post false. Open-source AI detection tool Content at Scale gave the image a 97% AI-rating.

    Screenshot from Facebook

    The account that shared the video has a pattern of posting viral claims about other unnamed people being sentenced for revealing supposed health tips. The posts usually feature AI-generated images of unnamed people in orange jumpsuits urging viewers to share the false post and to visit its website.

    PolitiFact previously debunked a similar claim about an unnamed cousin of Alfredo “Dr. Sebi” Bowman being ‘sent to life in prison’ for publishing health secrets. Bowman, who promoted controversial diets, died from pneumonia in 2016. His death has been the subject of many conspiracy theories.

    We rate the claim that Barbara O’Neill’s cousin was sentenced to life in prison for revealing health secrets False.

    RELATED: No proof Dr. Sebi’s cousin was ‘sent to life in prison’

    PolitiFact Staff Writer Sara Swann contributed to this report.



    Source