Category: Fact Check

Former President Donald Trump frequently says that the 2024 election needs to be “too big to rig” — a kind of get-out-the-vote message that builds on his past falsehoods about 2020 election rigging.

The Republican National Committee says it will deliver on Trump’s goal by recruiting people to both work at the polls and literally watch the polls.

Lara Trump, the RNC’s co-chair, explained the group’s strategyto Newsmax’s Eric Bolling during an April 23 interview. 

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers — people standing in polling locations — but people who can physically handle the ballots,” said Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law.

The RNC said it will recruit 100,000 volunteers and attorneys in battleground states to serve as poll watchers. These people would observe the electoral process, including prevoting election machine testing, voting, mail ballot processing and any postelection activities, including recounts. 

The RNC is also recruiting poll workers who are trained by local election offices, but the party hasn’t announced a target number for those workers. The RNC will connect people who want to be poll workers with local election offices that will train them. The RNC’s website lets people express interest in serving as a poll watcher, which is voluntary, or poll worker, which is generally paid.

The interview raised questions about what poll watchers are allowed to do

“The role of poll watchers is to observe the elections process,” said Jessica Corbitt, spokesperson for Fulton County, a jurisdiction that often has poll watchers. “They may not touch equipment or ballots.”

What’s a poll watcher?

Virtually all states have laws about election observation and poll watchers’ roles.

“Though rules differ on who is allowed to see what, all share the same motivation: to provide an avenue of transparency in the process to ensure that candidates and the public accept the result,” College of William & Mary election law professor Rebecca Green wrote in a 2021 article.

The National Conference of State Legislatures compiled the state laws about poll watchers, challengers or observers in 2022. (They go by different titles depending upon the law, and it’s possible for a state to have more than one of those roles — for example, Michigan has poll watchers and challengers.)

Poll watcher requirements vary by state. Some states require poll watchers to be registered to vote in that county or state; other states have no residency requirements. States often limit how many poll watchers are allowed at each site. Political parties or campaigns usually appoint poll watchers.

One rule is consistent: Poll watchers can’t interfere with the electoral process. They can only observe — without watching voters filling out their ballots.

“A successful day of poll watching is a day where nothing happens — it is an amazingly uninteresting thing,” said Ryan Barack, who has been a poll watcher in the past in Hillsborough County, Florida. Barack, a Democrat, was speaking for himself and not any candidate or group.

Some states let poll watchers challenge a voter’s eligibility. In Florida, the challenge must be in writing, contain an oath and delivered to the clerk, who provides a copy to the voter. The voter may then cast a provisional ballot. Filing a frivolous challenge is a first-degree misdemeanor.

Colorado, a vote-by-mail state, has an expansive law that allows poll watchers “at each stage of the conduct of the election, including when electors are voting or when election judges are present and performing election activities.”

The House of Representatives has its own program to send election observers, typically in districts with competitive races. 

In Milwaukee, observers commonly ask procedural questions or flag problems or perceived problems, said Claire Woodall, who was executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission until May 6, when the mayor replaced her. (PolitiFact interviewed her April 30.)

Woodall cited an example of a valid concern an observer raised about a voter who had been turned away for using a credit card statement as proof of address. The chief inspector confirmed that a credit card statement was acceptable and the voter was able to register and vote.

“Historically, we have only had positive interactions at polling places and Central Count for the most part,” Woodall said. “Observers are a critical part of the democratic process and ensure the fairness and transparency of elections.”

Poll watching has been around since the 1800s, although it looked much different then. Before the 1870s, few jurisdictions had voter registration, so people would show up to vote with their ballot in hand provided by a party ballot pusher, said Gideon Cohn-Postar, legislative director of Issue One, a democracy-focused advocacy group. 

Back then, poll watchers could challenge voters they didn’t recognize, and the voters would have to swear an oath on a Bible about their identity. Meanwhile, balloting would stop, delaying the process. Massachusetts was the first state to establish ballot secrecy in 1888 and other states followed.

How is a poll watcher different than a poll worker?

In this June 9, 2020, file photo election workers process mail-in ballots during a nearly all-mail primary election in Las Vegas. (AP)

Although poll watchers observe on a party or candidate’s behalf, poll workers or election inspectors work at election sites on local government’s behalf to ensure voters can cast ballots.

Poll workers, mostly temporary hires, check in voters, distribute ballots and direct voters to machines. They also enforce neutral zones which ban campaigns from waving signs within so many feet of a precinct. Georgia bans people from handing out food or water within 150 feet of a polling place — a rule comedian Larry David lampooned on “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

States have laws about poll worker requirements, including parity to hire workers from different parties.

Why is the RNC trying to increase poll watchers?

Polling workers inspect and count absentee ballots as poll watchers sit opposite, Nov. 10, 2020, in New York. (AP)

The RNC intensified its poll-watching plans after a legal agreement that limited its ballot monitoring expired.

Democrats sued the RNC alleging that the group intimidated Black and Hispanic voters during a 1981 election in New Jersey. In 1982, the RNC entered a consent decree to avoid prosecution. It allowed the federal court to monitor the party’s activities. In January 2018, a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama said that he had terminated the decree, concluding that Democrats failed to prove continuing violations. 

Trump told his supporters in North Carolina in September 2020 to serve as poll watchers to stop the “the thieving and stealing and robbing.” On April 16 in Pennsylvania, Trump told his supporters, “When you see them cheating, you get out there and start screaming. Start screaming.” Trump also repeated the debunked claim that Democrats rigged the 2020 election. “We’re not going to allow them to rig the presidential election of 2024,” he said.

The RNC recruited poll watchers in the 2022 midterms and then created a formalized “election integrity” department that includes challenging state voter laws and placing staff in battlegrounds states with competitive Senate or congressional races, including Florida and Ohio.

The party’s hires for this effort include Christina Bobb, a former One America News reporter who spread the myth about the “stolen” election. On April 26, Arizona’s attorney general said Bobb was among the defendants a a grand jury had indicted in a felony fake elector scheme. 

In the scheme, the fake electors submitted a document to Congress that falsely stated Trump had won the 2020 election.

Bobb lobbied Arizona Republican lawmakers to disregard the popular vote and helped organize the false electors’ votes, the indictment stated.

The Democratic National Committee is also working with state and local partners to recruit poll watchers, as it has previously. But the DNC hasn’t announced a goal of how many.

Poll watching can lead to misinformation

Election challengers look through the windows of the central counting board Nov. 4, 2020, in Detroit. (AP)

Election observation laws are intended to allow the public to see that elections are fair. Yet, in 2020, it sometimes led to misinformation.

In 2020, as absentee ballots were being processed at the TCF Center in Detroit, some election observers from both parties said they were being blocked. They were prohibited from entering TCF, but that’s because the observer count had reached the state-allowed limit. 

In a 2021 mayoral runoff in Anchorage, Alaska, election observers engaged in “unprecedented harassment of election officials” including taking photos of the license plate numbers of officials’ vehicles, according to a city clerk’s report.

The city has since changed regulations to address decorum and require that staff train the watchers.

After 2020, some states changed their laws to clarify poll watchers’ rights, sometimes giving them more power. For example, Montana passed a bill to allow watchers at all ballot drop-off locations; New York passed legislation to allow watchers at meetings where absentee ballots are processed. In Texas, poll watchers can sue if election workers get in their way. 

Experts said poll watchers may play a more significant role in national politics this year. 

“There has been an increase in people who want to watch the polls in a partisan way and (a) decrease in those to work the polls and I don’t think they are disconnected,” Cohn-Postar said.

Cohn-Postar, who served as a California poll watcher in 2022 as part of the congressional program on the Democratic side, said poll watching in itself is not problematic. As long as poll watchers can observe from a spot where they can see what’s going on and can’t interfere, and  “the election officials are trained in the relevant laws and able and empowered to intervene if someone crosses the line, then it’s fine.”

RELATED: Poll workers are short-staffed, under attack — and quietly defending democracy

Alfredo “Dr. Sebi” Bowman, who died in 2016 after a bout of pneumonia, is a regular subject of unfounded claims that he was killed for touting alternative diets. Now, members of his family are being targeted.

A May 1 Facebook post showed an unnamed man in an orange jumper with the text: “They want to hide the fact that Dr. Sebi’s cousin was sent to LIFE IN PRISON for revealing these gatekept health secrets.”

(Screenshot from Facebook)

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.)

We found no evidence that Dr. Sebi’s cousin received a life sentence. No news reports, documents, or public statements from Bowman’s daughter, Kellie, addressed or supported this claim. We asked Kellie Bowman for comment but did not hear back.

We also found no evidence that the man in the photo is related to Bowman. Reverse-image search yielded no matches.

Northwestern University computer science professor V.S. Subrahmanian and postdoctoral research fellow Marco Postiglione analyzed the image using automated and human analysis and said, “We believe this image is likely to be fake.”

Siwei Lyu, acomputer science and engineering professor at the University at Buffalo, told PolitiFact, “Visual inspection confirms almost surely this image was created by AI.” 

A closer look at the image reveals misshapen thumbs and fingers, a telltale sign of an image generated by artificial intelligence. Lyu also pointed out an “unnatural crevasse on the sleeves.”

(Screenshot from Facebook)

There’s no proof that Bowman’s cousin was sentenced to prison for life. We rated that claim False.

RELATED: ‘Dr. Sebi,’ promoter of controversial diets, died from pneumonia. He was not killed

An image of the misspelled phrase “Free Palastine” painted on steps leading up to a six-column building is being wielded in criticism against Columbia University, the New York-based college where a nationwide pro-Palestinian protest movement started several weeks ago.

“Palestine misspelled on the stairs of Columbia really captures the state of higher education,” one May 7 X post said. 

The image is a still photo from singer Macklemore’s newly released music video, visible around the 10-second mark. The song, “Hind’s Hall,” refers to Hamilton Hall, a Columbia University building that student activists occupied and called “Hind’s Hall” in remembrance of 6-year-old Hind Rajab, who was killed in Gaza.

But the steps of the building that says “Free Palastine” in the music video don’t lead to Hind’s Hall, or any building on Columbia’s campus. 

It’s Tabaret Hall at the University of Ottawa in Canada. The numbers “550” in the building’s address — 550 Cumberland St — are visible in university images of the hall and in the music video just before the moment that’s pictured in the X post. 

Photos of the painted steps also appear on the website and X account of The Fulcrum, the University of Ottawa’s independent student newspaper.

“UPDATE: The steps in front of Tabaret Hall were spray painted by a protester, who was then chased by security,” a May 1 X post from the newspaper said. “Witnesses tell the Fulcrum that the individual was picked up by a waiting vehicle.”

We rate claims this photo shows Columbia University False.

 

Could former President Donald Trump choose Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his 2024 running mate? Rubio’s getting a lot of attention, along with other possible vice presidential picks.

Selecting Rubio would require some constitutional two-stepping.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution says that, when the electoral college meets to determine the president, “the electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”

This clause has generally been interpreted to mean that if the presidential and vice presidential candidate come from the same state, the electors from that state cannot vote for both. They could vote for the president, but not for the vice president.

Currently, both Trump and Rubio are Floridians. In 2019, Trump famously renounced his longtime New York residency in favor of residing at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. And Rubio is serving his third term representing the Sunshine State.

Because Florida has 30 electoral votes, and because the election is expected to be close, a Trump-Rubio ticket would be riskier than a ticket with a non-Floridian.

What are those risks? Here are some questions and answers. (Rubio sidestepped the issue during a May 5 appearance on “Fox News Sunday”; his office did not answer an inquiry for this article.)

What happens if Trump chooses Rubio and both keep their Florida residency?

If Rubio doesn’t change his residency, Florida electors could not vote for both men. Assuming the electors all vote for Trump and not Rubio, and assuming Trump doesn’t win the presidency with at least 285 electoral votes, this would temporarily leave the vice presidency in limbo.

If no Trump-backing elector in Florida would choose the Democratic vice presidential nominee (presumably incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris), then no vice presidential candidate would receive an electoral college majority. 

That kicks the decision to the Senate, which can choose from the top two finishers; whoever got Florida’s electoral votes for vice president would finish no higher than third and would be ineligible.

Today, the Democrats hold a narrow edge in the Senate. However, the Senate that would choose the vice president prior to the Jan. 20, 2025, inauguration would include the new members elected in 2024. Because the Democrats face headwinds in keeping their majority, a Republican-majority Senate could end up deciding.

However, the choice wouldn’t be a slam dunk, Arizona State University political scientist Steve Smith said.

Deciding the issue, known as a point of order, can be debated — “and it can be filibustered,” Smith said. So, even if the GOP has enough votes to reach a simple majority, it would still need additional Democratic votes to surpass the 60-vote supermajority hurdle to cut off debate, he said. 

The Senate could use a simple majority — rather than the usual 60-vote supermajority — to waive the need for a supermajority. This process, known as the “nuclear option,” has been used before to allow for simple majority votes for nominations, including for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. But in a chamber as tradition-bound as the Senate, the nuclear option has been controversial and is never taken lightly.

Could Rubio resign from the Senate and move to another state?

This would be the cleanest way to resolve this vice presidential quandary. In 2000, Dick Cheney quit his Texas residency to run from Wyoming, which he had represented in the U.S. House, because his ticket mate, George W. Bush, was from Texas.

To do this, Rubio would also have to cede the Senate seat he would otherwise be entitled to hold until January 2029. And the Democrats would have a slightly larger margin in the Senate until the end of this year — all on the chance that Trump wins the presidency.

Reporting by veteran Florida political journalist Marc Caputo found state election law experts conflicted about what would happen to Rubio’s seat if he resigns. 

The normal deadline for federal candidates to declare to run for a vacated Rubio Senate seat has already passed. Although the state’s primary is Aug. 20, ballots must be sent to overseas absentee voters, including service members, beginning July 6. And meet this deadline, election officials would need sufficient lead time to design and print the ballots. “Anything after June 21 becomes burdensome for us,” Christina White, supervisor of elections in Miami-Dade County, told Caputo.

So, the window for initiating a 2024 election to succeed Rubio is fast closing. 

And if it’s too late for the 2024 election, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis — who challenged Trump in the presidential primary — might be able to choose a temporary replacement, likely to serve through January 2027.

Can Rubio relinquish his Florida residency?

If Rubio decided to move out of state, he’d first have to extricate himself from his Florida residency. This seems doable, experts say, though it’s odd; politicians usually want to establish, not cede, residency.

Under Florida law, residency rules vary depending on the purpose, such as qualifying for in-state tuition or a homestead tax exemption. Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political scientist, said residency questions arise frequently for lower-level offices. 

Jennifer S. Blohm, an election lawyer in Florida with the firm Meyer, Blohm and Powell, P.A., said that to determine residency status, courts usually consider driver’s license registration, voting registration and whether the person has a habitable home in the jurisdiction. 

Blohm said Rubio could probably maintain a house in Florida that he considers a vacation home while taking up residence in a new state.

Whether Rubio can establish a residency in another state may be trickier, University of Virginia law professor John Harrison said.

Harrison said residency requirements vary by state but often involve the legal concept of “domicile.” This is established by people’s physical presence in a jurisdiction, combined with their intent to reside in that jurisdiction indefinitely and not elsewhere.

In Rubio’s case, “even if he were to buy a house somewhere else, he might not have the requisite intent” under that particular state’s law to become a resident, Harrison said. “Cheney could plausibly say that he had established domicile in Wyoming because he moved there from Texas and had the requisite intent to live in Wyoming indefinitely” based on his previous congressional service.

But Rubio “doesn’t have a connection with any state other than Florida that would suggest that he could have an intent to remain in that other state indefinitely.” States often also mandate minimum periods people should be in the state to qualify. 

Let’s say Rubio manages to establish residency outside of Florida. Could he still represent Florida in the Senate?

This should be straightforward, experts say. 

The Constitution requires a senator to be an inhabitant of the state “when elected,” and that was certainly true in 2022, when Rubio won his current term.

Also, when the Supreme Court in 1995 struck down state laws establishing term limits for U.S. House members, its ruling said a state “can’t add to the qualifications for federal office” that already exist in federal law, Harrison said. 

So, Florida can’t pass a law to force its senators to live in Florida.

Could Rubio remain in Florida to see if Trump wins, then change residency before the Electoral College votes?

A close reading of the Constitution makes this theoretically possible. The clause that penalizes a presidential and vice presidential candidate who come from the same state refers to ballot casting by electors, not the general public. So, Rubio might be able to reduce his downside risk by residing in Florida until the election is called, then shift his residency if Trump wins, as long as it’s before electors cast their ballots Dec. 17.

Besides being logistically challenging for Rubio and his family, this residency switching could inspire litigation.

“There is still an argument made about the purpose, or spirit, of the constitutional provision in play, which in this case is plainly to keep two people from the same state serving as president and vice-president during the same term,” University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt said.

Gerhardt added that Congress has sometimes found its way around plain constitutional language by, for instance, making an exception for elected members who fall short of the constitutional age requirement.

“It is not unthinkable that Congress or the Court could devise an exception for this along the same lines,” he said.

Why is all the burden on Rubio? Couldn’t Trump do something?

Trump could fairly easily move his residency to one of his other properties. New York seems unlikely, since his earlier move to Florida offended New Yorkers and because he’s faced both civil and criminal prosecution there. But he owns the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Perhaps Trump could even just stay in one of his hotels. When he was running for president in 1988, George H.W. Bush called a suite at the Houstonian hotel his residence. 

“One part of me thinks given all of these complications, Trump might not choose Rubio,” Jewett said. “But on the other hand, time after time for eight years now, Trump has done novel things that often cause big legal messes. So that has not often stopped him before.”

Sitting outside in a checkered shirt, celebrity heart surgeon and onetime U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz appears to promote diet pills to combat obesity in a video shared May 1 on Facebook.  

“To address these issues, we developed this product,” Oz appears to say. “It helps dissolve fat throughout the day, even while you sleep. No need for dieting or exercise.”

The Facebook account sharing the video, “Keto Slimmer,” wrote: “Dr. Oz’s exclusive pills is key to your success in shedding those extra pounds.” 

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

The video in the post is altered. PolitiFact found the original posted March 26 on Oz’s TikTok account.

“If you’re feeling down or depressed this time of year you’re not alone,” Oz said in the original video. “It happens to everyone. Feelings like this are a sign to pay attention to something that’s just not working in your life. So, use it as a way to focus in on what needs to change in your life, like pain or sadness, anxiety — it’s a clue to find what’s not working so you can make a different choice. If you can’t change what’s bringing you down, that’s a time to ask your family, your friends, or even your health care team for help. There’s lots of people who want you to do your best and want you to succeed. So don’t hesitate to reach out.”

Oz has been the target of altered videos before, including some that appeared to show him promoting a coffee weight loss supplement and hawking a diabetes cure, 

We rate claims this video shows him promoting diet pills False.

 

A video of a mother saying her son uses a litter box at school because he “identifies as a cat” has gone viral online.

A May 1 Facebook video begins with a 2022 clip from the United Kingdom-based Channel 4 News in which a journalist said, “Are American schools installing cat litter boxes in toilets for children who think they’re cats?” (The video omits the part when the journalist says this isn’t happening.)

Then, the video cuts to a person reacting to what looks like a mother encouraging her child to use the litter box. The person says the parent “has now categorized (her son) as a cat and even restricted his teachers from letting him use the bathroom.”

(Screengrab from Facebook)

The video shows a clip of the mom who says she bought a litter box for her son to put in the school bathroom and use.

“It’s so sad to think that kids are being coached to think this is normal,” the person reacting to the video says.

Another Facebook post shared the same video. These posts were 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 video of the “mom” talking about her son using the litter box originated from a satirical TikTok account that often shares fake stories about family members.

The original video was shared Sept. 21, 2023, along with a caption that had a hashtag that said “satire.” The TikTok user’s bio also says it is a “satire account.”

PolitiFact has fact-checked false claims about schools putting litter boxes in bathrooms for students who identify as “furries,” or people interested in anthropomorphized animals. We rated these claims Pants on Fire.

We rate the claim that a video shows a mom encouraging her son “who identifies as a cat to use the litter box at school” Pants on Fire!

RELATED: Debunking, rebuttals didn’t stop claim about litter boxes in schools from spreading before midterms

Former President Donald Trump said that a gag order in his New York trial prevents him from testifying. 

“Well, I’m not allowed to testify, I’m under a gag order I guess, right?” Trump said May 2 at the end of the day at the Manhattan courthouse.

Trump added, “I’m not allowed to talk” and “I’m not allowed to testify because of an unconstitutional gag order. We’re appealing the gag order and let’s see what happens.”

The next day, he corrected his false statement while responding to a reporter’s question before court.

“The gag order is not to testify,” Trump said May 3. “The gag order stops me from talking about people and responding when they say things about me.” (A Trump campaign spokesperson directed us to his May 3 statement.)

At PolitiFact, we recognize politicians who correct their statements, but we still fact-check their initial statements if those statements drew attention. We have fact-checked many politicians or political figures who admit, usually through a spokesperson, that they misspoke, including Joe Biden in 2020.

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.

On April 1, Judge Juan Merchan issued a gag order against Trump to limit his speech and prevent him from continuing to attack witnesses outside of court. But the order does not deny Trump his constitutional right to testify in court.

“A judge never prohibits a defendant from testifying,” said Evan Gotlob, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. “Once the (district attorney) rests their case, he is more than welcome to testify.”

Usually, criminal defendants don’t testify, and if Trump doesn’t testify, jurors will be instructed to not view that as a sign of guilt, Gotlob said.

When court resumed May 3, Merchan told Trump that the gag order “does not prohibit you from taking the stand” and that it applies only to “extrajudicial statements.” These are statements said outside the courtroom.

Gag order limits Trump, but does not silence him

The gag order aims to curb what Trump can say related to the case on social media, media interviews or campaign rallies, but it does not silence him. Trump can still talk about the case on the campaign trail and criticize key people with power in the prosecution.

Merchan’s order bars Trump from speaking about witnesses, lawyers, court staff members and their family if those statements interfere with the case. He also can’t talk about jurors. But Trump can still criticize District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Merchan and still call the case a “Biden trial,” an assertion we have rated False. The case is being prosecuted under New York law and there is no evidence Biden is involved. 

The gag order’s goal is to limit “what Trump can say to protect the integrity of the evidence and proceedings,” said Neama Rahmani, a former prosecutor who co-founded West Coast Trial Lawyers. 

On April 30, Merchan fined Trump $9,000 for violating the gag order. 

Before the trial started, Trump told reporters he planned to testify.

Our ruling

Trump said, “I’m not allowed to testify” because of a gag order.

The gag order does not prevent Trump from taking the stand in court. A judge cannot deny Trump his constitutional right to testify.

The gag order bars Trump from talking about witnesses, court staff and jurors. But it still allows him to talk about the case, the judge and district attorney. 

We rate this statement False. 

RELATED: Fact-check: Trump says business records case about hush money is a “Biden trial.” It’s a Manhattan trial

RELATED: Fact-check: No, Stormy Daniels didn’t ‘exonerate’ Donald Trump

RELATED: A fact-checker’s guide to Trump’s first criminal trial: business records, hush money and a gag order

PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this fact-check.

Democrats wasted no time blasting former President Donald Trump over his comments about abortion in interviews with Time magazine.

Within 24 hours of Time’s April 30 online rollout of its cover story about Trump’s vision for a second term, top Democratic lawmakers nationwide issued condemnations, including President Joe Biden.

“Trump did a long interview in Time magazine,” Biden said at a May 1 campaign reception. “It’s coming out. You got to read it. It’s a mandatory reading. And he said in that magazine, he said states should monitor women’s, now, get this, states should monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. Monitor women’s pregnancies?”

Some of Biden’s allies made similar points on X. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said Trump “said again that women should be punished for abortions.” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Trump “endorses punishing women who get an abortion.”

But these claims go further than what Trump said. Trump didn’t endorse either policy, and instead acknowledged to the Time reporter, Eric Cortellessa, that states may decide to introduce criminal abortion penalties or monitor women for legal compliance. He wouldn’t share his opinion on whether they should, calling his comfort “irrelevant.” 

Vice President Kamala Harris was more careful in her Jacksonville, Florida, campaign stop, saying Trump told the magazine that states have the right to monitor and punish women over abortion. That more accurately summed up Trump’s remarks, though he was not that direct.

Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer told PolitiFact that Trump was “clear” in his interview. 

“He believes states should be allowed to ban abortion, monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute women if they violate those bans,” Singer wrote in an email. “That is what the President was speaking about. Neither the President nor our campaign are going to allow Donald Trump off the hook on this.”

PolitiFact reached out to Trump’s campaign to get more clarity on his position and received no response. 

What the Time magazine story and transcript show

Time published transcripts from two interviews Cortellessa had with Trump in April.

Cortellessa tried asking Trump several abortion-related questions, including whether he would veto federal abortion restrictions and how he would vote on Florida’s proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion access. Trump turned the focus onto the states without giving his personal take.

Then, Cortellessa asked, “Do you think states should monitor women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban?” 

Trump replied, “I think they might do that. Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states.” 

As Trump began talking about Roe v. Wade, the legal precedent that allowed federal abortion access until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 2022, Cortellessa jumped in. The journalist mentioned states “prosecuting women” who received illegal abortions and he asked Trump whether he was comfortable with that.

Trump said his comfort was irrelevant. Here’s the transcript:

Cortellessa: “States will decide if they’re comfortable or not —” 

Trump: “Yeah the states —”

Cortellessa: “Prosecuting women for getting abortions after the ban. But are you comfortable with it?” 

Trump: “The states are going to say. It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions. And by the way, Texas is going to be different than Ohio. And Ohio is going to be different than Michigan. I see what’s happening.”

Cortellessa featured Trump’s abortion comments high in the Time story, characterizing them by saying Trump “would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.” 

Democrats have been focusing on the possibility of state-level abortion penalties. So far, such efforts to punish women have foundered.  

Lawmakers in states such as Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas and South Carolina have offered bills that could allow the prosecution of women who have abortions. None has advanced far; some Republican leaders have come out against them as too extreme. PolitiFact couldn’t find any bills introduced so far that would require monitoring of pregnancies to prevent abortions.

This is not the first time Biden has said that Trump supports punishing women for getting abortions. We have rated previous claims Mostly False. In a 2016 MSNBC town hall, host Chris Matthews asked about penalties for abortion, and Trump said there has to be “some form of punishment” for women. But Trump retracted the comment that same day, amid criticism, and issued a statement that said he meant that physicians should be held legally responsible, not women.

Our ruling

Biden said Trump said that states “should” monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute women who violate abortion bans. 

Trump didn’t tell Time that he believed states should do this. He said they might. 

His comments allowed for the possibility that states could monitor and punish women for getting illegal abortions. He wouldn’t explain how he felt, telling the reporter to ask the states about monitoring and punishment because “it’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not.” 

Biden’s statement contains an element of truth that Trump’s position would allow states to monitor and punish women over illegal abortions, but it ignores the critical detail that Trump did not say states “should” do this. We rate Biden’s statement Mostly False.