Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
SciCheck Digest
Fox News health commentator Dr. Kelly Powers was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer, in July 2020, months before COVID-19 vaccines were made available in the U.S. But social media posts are baselessly linking her death on Dec. 4 to the vaccines. There is no evidence that the vaccines cause or worsen cancer.
Full Story
Studies have shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are very effective in preventing severe cases of the disease and death, saving millions of lives across the world.
Clinical trials involving thousands of people, numerous studies and close monitoring of hundreds of millions of doses have found the vaccines to be safe. As we’ve written, serious side effects are rare.
Despite the evidence, a growing number of people have become skeptical of the effectiveness of the vaccines and believe false conspiracy theories that they are killing large numbers of people.
There is no evidence supporting a link between the COVID-19 vaccine and cancer, as we’ve reported. Both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have said there’s no information suggesting the vaccines cause cancer, make it more aggressive, or lead to a recurrence of cancer.
But vaccine opponents have tried to make that connection, claiming vaccines can cause a particularly fast-growing cancer, coining the term “turbo cancer” to describe the supposed phenomenon. It is not backed by evidence, as we’ve reported.
After Dr. Kelly Powers died on Dec. 4 at age 45, posts on Facebook and Instagram baselessly suggested her cancer was caused or worsened by the COVID-19 vaccine. Powers, a podiatric surgeon and health commentator for Fox News and Fox Business, was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer, in July 2020, months before the vaccines were first distributed in the U.S. in December 2020.
Posts on Facebook and Instagram included a screenshot of a headline from a Dec. 4 article by the People’s Voice, a website that often publishes vaccine misinformation. The headline read: “Fully Vaccinated Fox News Doctor Kelly Powers, Who Survived On-Air Heart Attack, Dies From Turbo Cancer.”
A Dec. 4 Instagram post, which shared a screenshot of the headline, wrote: “But probably not related, right?”
Another Facebook post shared a screenshot of a different article from the People’s Voice, headlined: “Scientists Warn Turbo Cancer That Killed Kelly Powers Will Soon ‘Spread Like Wildfire’ Among General Population.”
“Terrible: Scientists have predicted that the vaccinated population will soon see a sharp rise in turbo cancer diagnoses in the next few years,” the post read. “Experts are worried there will be more cases like Dr Powers in the coming decades because glioblastomas are on the rise among all age groups. Diagnoses are expected to rise by up to 75 percent by 2050.”
No Evidence Supporting Link to Cancer
While COVID-19 vaccines can cause minor and short-lived side effects, such as fatigue and soreness at the injection site, there is no evidence that the vaccines cause cancer or worsen cancer in people who already have it.
Vaccine opponents point to some studies they claim show such a link. For instance, social media posts, including an April 16 Facebook post by America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has repeatedly spread misinformation about the pandemic, has highlighted a review article published in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules to claim that “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.”
But the review paper, as we’ve written, was based on other published articles and did not contain original research. Experts told us that the review misinterpreted several studies about the role of a particular mRNA modification used in the mRNA vaccines. There is no evidence the modification increases cancer growth.
Posts in 2023 made similar false claims, citing a study that they said “proves Pfizer mRNA induced turbo cancer.” The posts claimed that a mouse in the study “died suddenly,” echoing incorrect beliefs that large groups of people have died from the vaccine.
However, one of the co-authors of the study in question told us their case report had been misinterpreted. The 2023 study, published in Frontiers in Oncology, described a single mouse that died from lymphoma out of 14 mice that were given a high-dose Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine injected directly into a vein. That’s not the method used to give vaccines to people, and the study did not actually show the mouse’s blood cancer was related to the vaccine.
The authors later published an addendum to their paper noting that after injecting more than 70 mice, they only ever observed the one mouse with any kind of blood cancer. They also emphasized that as a case report, their study did not establish a causal link between vaccination and cancer nor did it in any way change the vaccine’s “overwhelming benefit-risk profile.” They added that they wished to “unequivocally disassociate” themselves from the made-up term of “turbo cancer.”
Glioblastoma Is Inherently Aggressive
The type of brain cancer that Powers had is rare and difficult to treat, and there is little known about what causes it, as we’ve reported. Glioblastoma is a stage 4 brain cancer and is inherently aggressive. As the Glioblastoma Foundation explains, it’s an invasive and fast-growing cancer with a poor prognosis. With treatment, the median survival is about 15 months, according to the foundation, although women and younger patients typically live longer.
A GoFundMe fundraiser for Powers created in June notes that she was diagnosed “with one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer” and explains that her cancer returned this year after “three brain surgeries, multiple rounds of radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy.”
COVID-19 vaccination is especially important for people with cancer. “Some people with cancer are at increased risk of serious illness if they get COVID-19, because their immune systems have been weakened by the cancer and/or its treatments,” the American Cancer Society explains on its website. Vaccination is one of the most important ways of reducing a person’s risk.
Sources
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “COVID-19 Vaccines.” 11 Oct 2024.
World Health Organization. Press release. “COVID-19 vaccinations have saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region, a new study finds.” 16 Jan 2024.
Van Beusekom, Mary. “Global COVID vaccination saved 2.4 million lives in first 8 months, study estimates.” CIDRAP. University of Minnesota. 31 Oct 2023.
Trang, Brittany. “Covid vaccines averted 3 million deaths in U.S., according to new study.” Stat. 13 Dec 2022.
Watson, Oliver J., et al. “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study.” Infectious Diseases. 23 Jun 2022.
CDC. “Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.” Updated 30 Oct 2024.
Jaramillo, Catalina. “Still No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Cancer Risk, Despite Posts.” FactCheck.org. 3 May 2024.
Van Beusekomm, Mary. “Survey reveals growing American distrust in vaccines for COVID, other infectious diseases.” Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. University of Minnesota. 29 Aug 2024.
Yandell, Kate. “No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online.” FactCheck.org. 17 Apr 2023.
McDonald, Jessica. “As Trump Taps RFK Jr. for Health Secretary, a Look Back at Kennedy’s Claims.” FactCheck.org. 22 Nov 2024.
Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Alter DNA, Cause Cancer.” FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2023.
National Cancer Institute. “COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer.” NIH. Accessed 9 Oct 2024.
American Cancer Society. “COVID-19 Vaccines in People with Cancer.” Accessed 9 Oct 2024.
Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause ‘Turbo Cancer’.” FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2023.
Ruberg, Sara. “Kelly Powers, 45, Dies; Fox Health Commentator Told of Her Cancer.” New York Times. 4 Dec 2024.
FactCheck.org. “How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?” Updated 17 May 2022.
Jaramillo, Catalina. “Autopsy Study Doesn’t Show COVID-19 Vaccines Are Unsafe.” FactCheck.org. 21 Dec 2022.
Eens, Sander, et al. “B-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Following Intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA Booster in a BALB/c Mouse: A Case Report.” Frontiers in Oncology. 1 May 2023.
Eens, Sander, et al. “Addendum: B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: a case report.” Frontiers in Oncology. 20 Oct 2023.
Glioblastoma Foundation. “Information about Glioblastoma.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.
Glioblastoma Foundation. “Overview.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.
Glioblastoma Foundation. “What is the Prognosis of Glioblastoma?” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.
American Cancer Society. “Questions About COVID-19 and Cancer.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
President-elect Donald Trump has renewed his call to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. whose parents are not in the country legally. Online posts falsely claim this would strip four of Trump’s children of citizenship because of their mothers’ citizenship status when they were born.
Full Story
President-elect Donald Trump revived talk of abolishing birthright citizenship during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Dec. 8, saying he was “absolutely” going to end the policy. Trump also raised the issue in his first presidential campaign in 2016, but he never followed through with a promised executive order to challenge the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
Host Kristen Welker asked Trump whether he still planned to end birthright citizenship through “an executive action” that reinterprets the 14th Amendment — as he promised in a 2023 campaign video — rather than through a constitutional amendment, as most legal scholars believe it would require.
“Well, we’re going to have to get it changed,” Trump said. “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.”
Recent social media posts wrongly claim that if Trump is successful, four of his own children would not be U.S. citizens.
“Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship would mean 4 of his children wouldn’t be considered US citizens,” a Dec. 9 Threads post says. The post shows photos of the four adult children and the years they were born: Don Jr. in 1977, Ivanka in 1981, Eric in 1984, and Barron in 2006.
The post notes that Trump’s first wife, Ivana Trump, who was born in Czechoslovakia, became a U.S. citizen in 1988 after the birth of the three older children, and Melania Trump, who was born in Slovenia, obtained her U.S. citizenship in 2006, after Barron’s birth.
However, Robert Scott, an immigration attorney based in New York, told us in an email, “There’s really no sound argument that any of Donald’s children are not U.S. citizens.”
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The amendment, enacted during Reconstruction, was designed to guarantee civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved individuals. The Supreme Court hassince clarified that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
We’ve previously addressed claims about Barron Trump’s citizenship. “Since Barron Trump was born in the U.S., and neither of his parents is/was a diplomat with diplomatic immunity when he was born, he is unquestionably a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment,” Scott said.
The same principle applies to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric,Scott said.
On his campaign website in 2023, Trump said his executive order would direct federal agencies to “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”
In the case of each child, their father, Donald Trump, was a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth.
Scott noted that different rules apply to children born outside the United States, because being a father who is a U.S. citizen does not always automatically confer citizenship on a child born overseas. “Had Ivana and Donald had a child overseas (after 1971), while NOT married to each other, then that child would not necessarily be a U.S. citizen despite Donald’s U.S. citizenship,” he said.
This is irrelevant for Trump’s children, as all were born in New York while their parents were married.
Scott explained that even if Barron had been born outside the U.S., he would still qualify as a U.S. citizen at birth under section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law sets the citizenship requirements for those born abroad: at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen and must have lived in the United States for at least five years prior to the child’s birth abroad, including two years after the parent turned 14 years old. This condition would have been satisfied by Donald Trump.
Ivana Trump became a U.S. citizen in 1988, after the births of her three children with Donald Trump, who was a U.S. citizen born in New York. Melania Trump, who became a U.S. citizen in 2006 after Barron’s birth, also had no bearing on Barron’s automatic citizenship, as Trump’s status as a citizen sufficed under the law.
During the “Meet the Press” interview, Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. is “the only country” that has birthright citizenship. In fact, at least three dozen countries provide automatic citizenship to people born on their soil, including Canada and Mexico.
Trump has said he might try to change the law through an executive order. Constitutional law experts have said such an approach would face significant legal hurdles, as we’ve written.
“Revoking birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment,” Berta Hernández-Truyol, a law professor at the University of Florida, told us in an email. “The 14th Amendment provides an express textual guarantee, and neither the president nor Congress can unilaterally change that.”
As we said, in the NBC News interview Trump acknowledged, “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people.”
Sources
Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Dubious Promise to End Birthright Citizenship.” FactCheck.org. 2 Jun 2023.
National Archives. “14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868).“
Donald Trump. “Agenda47: Day One Executive Order Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism.” donaldjtrump.com. 30 May 2023.
FBI Records: The Vault. Ivana Trump. Accessed 9 Dec 2024.
IMDb. “Barron Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
IMDb. “Donald Trump Jr.: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
IMDb. “Eric Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
IMDb. “Ivanka Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
Kiely, Eugene, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Jessica McDonald. “FactChecking Trump’s ‘Meet the Press’ Interview.” 9 Dec 2024.
Scott, Robert. Immigration attorney, New York. Emails to FactCheck.org. 20 Nov 2024 and 9 Dec 2024.
Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol. Law professor, University of Florida. Email to FactCheck.org. 20 Nov 2024.
U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Obtaining U.S. Citizenship for a Child Born Abroad.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
Drabold, Will. “Watch Melania Trump’s Speech at the Republican Convention.” Time. 18 Jul 2016.
Johnson, Jenna. “Here are 76 of Donald Trump’s many campaign promises.” Washington Post. 22 Jan 2016.
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook: Citizenship. Accessed 10 Dec 2024.
Library of Congress. “United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
In his first post-election, sit-down broadcast interview, President-elect Donald Trump outlined his priorities for a second term. But in the interview, Trump continued to repeat inaccurate information related to immigration, crime, trade, health care and the election.
The interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker aired on Dec. 8.
Unsupported Claim About Jan. 6 Committee Evidence
Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol — which he derisively called the “unselect committee” — had “deleted and destroyed all evidence” obtained in its investigation.
“So the unselect committee went through a year and a half of testimony,” Trump said. “Wait, they deleted and destroyed all evidence of — that they found. You know why? Because [then-House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi was guilty. Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 troops. You wouldn’t have had a J6 because other people were guilty. … And all of this stuff came out. People lied so badly. Now, listen, this was a committee, a big deal. They lied. And what did they do? They deleted and destroyed a whole year and a half worth of testimony. Do you know that I can’t get — I think those people committed a major crime. … And [then-Rep. Liz] Cheney was behind it. And so was [Rep.] Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee. For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.”
In 2022, the Jan. 6 committee issued a more than 800-page report that detailed how Trump’s false claims undermining the integrity of the 2020 election led to the Capitol riot. The committee also released more than 140 transcripts of the testimony that went into the report and has made public videos, depositions and documents — including memos, emails and voicemails.
When Welker noted that the committee denied it had destroyed any evidence, Trump said, “Bennie Thompson [the Democratic congressman who chaired the committee] wrote a statement that he has destroyed all evidence.”
As we have written, Thompson sent Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk a letter on July 7, 2023, in which he reported that more than a million records had been prepared for publication and archiving in coordination with several governmental offices, including the National Archives and Records Administration and the Committee on House Administration.
In a footnote to that letter, Thompson explained, “the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities.”
After receiving the letter, Loudermilk subsequently told Fox News that the committee hadn’t adequately preserved some documents, data and video depositions. But Loudermilk never claimed the committee’s records were destroyed, as Trump claimed. Rather, Loudermilk raised concerns over what materials needed to be archived. The evidence preserved by the committee is still publicly available on a government website.
As for Trump’s claim that Pelosi turned down his request for 10,000 National Guard troops, the House select committee on the Capitol attack said it found “no evidence” of that.
False Birthright Citizenship Claim
Trump said he was “absolutely” committed to ending birthright citizenship, the granting of citizenship to babies born in the U.S. even if their parent or parents are in the country illegally, according to a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Calling the policy “ridiculous,” Trump wrongly claimed “we’re the only country in the world that has it.” While the majority of countries do not have such a policy, more than 30 of them do, including Canada and a number of other countries in Central and South America, according to a 2018 report by the Global Legal Research Directorate, a division of the Law Library of Congress.
Trump was noncommittal about whether he would seek to end birthright citizenship via executive action, as he has proposed in the past. As we wrote in 2023, most legal scholars believe such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Trump acknowledged in his NBC interview that “we’ll maybe have to go back to the people” to end the practice.
No Evidence for Oft-Repeated Migrant Claim
Trump made the oft-repeated and unsupported claim that “migrants are pouring into the country that are from prisons and from mental institutions.” Immigration experts have told us there’s simply no evidence of that. One expert said Trump’s claims appear to be “a total fabrication.”
By way of evidence, Trump said, “Do you know that Venezuela, their prisons are at the lowest point in terms of emptiness that they’ve ever been? They’re taking their people out of those prisons by the thousands and they’re drop[ping]” them in the U.S.
“We have no evidence that the Venezuelan government is emptying the prisons or mental hospitals to send them out of the country, whether to the USA or any other country,” Roberto Briceño-León, founder and director of the independent Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, told us.
According to the Venezuelan Prison Observatory’s 2022 annual report, the country’s prison population in 2022 was 33,558, just 152 fewer than in 2021. During Trump’s presidency, there was a nearly 35% decrease between 2017 and 2020.
Briceño-León told us crime has dropped in Venezuela in part due to worsening economic and living conditions, which have caused nearly 8 million people to leave the country since 2014. The vast majority have settled in nearby South American countries.
Tariff Threats Against Mexico
Trump claimed that “within 10 minutes after [a post-election] phone call” with Mexico’s president — during which he threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico if it didn’t help deter illegal immigration to the U.S. — “we noticed that the people coming across the border, the southern border having to do with Mexico, there were a trickle. Just a trickle.” Trump claimed that in light of his tariff threat, the Mexican government had “largely stopped” caravans of migrants headed to the U.S. border.
Although U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not officially released its border apprehension data for November, the Associated Press reported that about 46,700 people were arrested that month for illegally crossing the border from Mexico, according to a CBP official. That would be the lowest monthly figure of Joe Biden’s presidency, but it’s in line with the figures since June 4, when Biden announced a series of executive actions designed to address “substantial levels of migration” by temporarily restricting asylum eligibility when daily border encounters reach high levels.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum denied Trump’s claim that his tariff threat had changed Mexico’s migration policy.
“Caravans of migrants no longer reach the border,” Sheinbaum said on Nov. 26.
“In our conversation with President Trump, I explained to him the comprehensive strategy that Mexico has followed to address the migratory phenomenon, respecting human rights,” Sheinbaum wrote on X the following day, Nov. 27, according to a Google translation. “Thanks to this, migrants and caravans are assisted before they arrive at the border. We reiterate that Mexico’s position is not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and between peoples.”
Migrant Murderers
While talking about deporting migrants living in the U.S. illegally, Trump again falsely claimed that “13,099 murderers [were] released into our country over the last three years,” adding that they are “walking next to you and your family.”
During the campaign, we wrote that there were 13,099 noncitizens in the U.S. who were convicted of murder, but were not being detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, the “vast majority” of them were sentenced prior to the Biden administration, and many were being held in prisons or jails (which explains why they are not in ICE custody), according to the Department of Homeland Security.
No Evidence of 2020 Election Fraud
Trump falsely implied that he only lost the 2020 election because of fraud. Asked if he would concede that he lost the 2020 election, Trump said, “Why would I do that?” He then went on to claim that he won in 2024 because his margin of victory was “too big to rig.”
As we have written, there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 election. State and federal judges have rejected Trump’s claims, often saying that his legal team provided no evidence of fraud. The Trump administration’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history,” and his former attorney general at the time, William Barr, repeatedly said he saw no evidence of fraud that could have altered the outcome of the 2020 election.
Why California Vote Count Takes Time
Trump also falsely implied that counting ballots weeks after Election Day is a sign of fraud.
“Do you know they’re still counting votes in San Diego, California? Listen, they’re still counting the votes. This is almost four weeks. They’re still counting the votes,” Trump said. “If we don’t have fair elections and honest voting and machines that work quickly, if you had paper ballots every election would be over by 10:00 in the evening. … And you’d get a much more accurate count.”
As we wrote in late November, several states — including California — were still counting ballots, but it is not a sign of fraud. In California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber said at a Nov. 14 press conference that the state laws and rules result in a lengthy but accurate count of ballots. “This approach involves a series of rigorous checks and safeguards, including signature verification, machine audits and manual counts,” she said.
The following day, Weber said in a post on X that local election officials have 30 days to complete vote counting, auditing and certification. The secretary of state has until Dec. 13 to certify the state’s results.
As for Trump’s call for paper ballots, the Brennan Center for Justice said that an estimated 98% of U.S. voters were expected to use paper ballots to cast their votes in 2024, including in California.
Vaccines
Trump made clear he was open to further investigating the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism.
Mentioning longtime vaccine opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Welker asked Trump if he wanted “to see childhood vaccines eliminated.”
“If they’re dangerous for the children,” he replied, going on to allude to increases in various chronic diseases in children. The conversation quickly pivoted to autism, with Trump emphasizing its increasing prevalence.
“Go back 25 years. Autism was almost nonexistent,” he said. “It was, you know, 1 out of 100,000. And now it’s close to 1 out of 100.”
Trump, who on his own and with Kennedy has previously spread falsehoods about vaccines, did not explicitly say that vaccines cause autism. But he repeatedly suggested it was possible and kept citing prevalence figures when Welker interjected to explain that many studies have already been done on the issue and that much of the increase in autism prevalence is due to better identification of the condition.
“I think vaccines are — certain vaccines — are incredible. But maybe some aren’t. And if they aren’t, we have to find out,” he said. “But when you talk about autism, because it was brought up, and you look at the amount we have today versus 20 or 25 years ago, it’s pretty scary.”
“I think somebody has to find out,” he said at one point.
As we’ve explained repeatedly, the idea that it’s not known whether vaccines cause autism or it hasn’t been tested enough is misleading. While science can rarely prove that something is not causing something, after extensive study under a number of different hypotheses, vaccines have not been shown to be linked to autism in any way. Research also now shows the neurodevelopmental condition begins prior to birth. To continue studying the issue is a waste of research dollars and time — and does a disservice to the families of children with autism, experts say.
One of the prevalence numbers Trump used is also exaggerated. Nearly 25 years ago, in 2000, a CDC study estimated that about 1 in 150 children in the U.S. had autism — not 1 in 100,000 (the latest CDC estimate, for 2020, is 1 in 36 kids). Even in the 1960s and ‘70s, when some of the first prevalence studies were conducted using a very strict definition of the condition, the reported autism rate was higher than Trump said, at about 1 to 5 per 10,000 children. While prevalence figures for autism have greatly increased over time, researchers say this is largely driven by better detection and changes in how autism is defined.
False Claim About U.S.-European Trade
Trump claimed that “European nations” are taking “advantage of us on trade,” falsely adding: “They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our food product, they don’t take anything.”
It is true that the U.S. had a trade deficit of about $125 billion in goods and services with the European Union in 2023, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. However, the EU imported $639.6 billion of U.S. goods or services in 2023, and $487 billion in the first three quarters of 2024, according to BEA data. That doesn’t include the United Kingdom, which imported about $166 billion of U.S. goods or services in 2023.
U.S. goods imported by the EU countries includes crude oil, motor vehicles and agricultural products.
False Claim About Youth Vote
Trump wrongly claimed, “I won youth by 30%. All Republicans lose youth. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s changing. And last time we were down 30% with youth. This time we were up 35% with youth.”
Trump’s showing among young voters improved dramatically compared to 2020 — and was the best for a Republican since 2008, according to NBC News exit polling — but Democrat Kamala Harris still bested Trump among young voters.
AP Votecast exit polls results showed Harris won 51% to 47% among those aged 18 to 29, and 50% to 47% among those aged 30 to 34. Exit polls conducted by Edison Research on behalf of the National Election Poll, a consortium of media networks — ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC News — had Harris winning among those aged 18 to 24 by 54% to 43%, and by 53% to 45% among those aged 25 to 29.
Crime Not ‘At an All-Time High’
Trump wrongly said that “crime is at an all-time high” or at the “highest” rate. The U.S. violent crime rate peaked in the early 1990s and has dropped considerably since. In recent years, the violent crime rate has been less than half the rates from three decades ago, according to estimates from the FBI.
Trump also cited ABC News’ David Muir commenting during Trump’s September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that crime was going down overall, according to the FBI. “And then the following day, they released the crime rates and they were way up,” Trump wrongly said. About two weeks after the debate, the FBI released statistics for 2023 and revisions for some recent years. But the revised data still showed a decline in the violent crime rate since 2020, Trump’s last year in office.
“Violent crime rose in 2020 and has fallen since then though the rise in violent crime has always been more muted than people assume. Murder, by contrast, rose a ton in 2020 and is falling a ton right now,” Jeff Asher, co-founder of the criminal justice data analysis group AH Datalytics, wrote in an Oct. 17 Substack post.
Obamacare
Trump distorted the facts in talking about his actions during his first term regarding the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. “I am the one that saved Obamacare, I will say,” Trump claimed. “And I did the right thing. I could’ve done the more political thing and killed it. And all I had to do is starve it to death.” Trump tried, but failed, to repeal and replace the ACA when he was president, and his administration backed a lawsuit that would have nullified the entire law, as Welker pointed out.
Trump responded that the lawsuit could have killed the ACA “from a legal standpoint. But from a physical standpoint, I made it work.” It’s unclear what Trump means by “made it work,” but if the goal of the law was to get more Americans enrolled in health insurance, Trump’s administration didn’t do that. Under his tenure, the number of people without health insurance went up by 3 million, and the percentage of the uninsured went up by about a half a percentage point.
His administration slashed advertising and outreach aimed at enrolling people in ACA plans, and he pushed the expansion of cheaper short-term health plans that wouldn’t have to abide by the ACA’s prohibitions against denying or pricing coverage based on health status. In the NBC News interview, Trump tried to wrongly take credit for the ACA insuring 20 million people, a figure Welker cited. In this year’s open enrollment period, 21.4 million people signed up for an ACA marketplace plan or were automatically reenrolled. That’s up from the 11.4 million who were enrolled in 2020, Trump’s last year in office.
As he did during his debate with Harris, Trump said he had “concepts of a plan that would be better” than the ACA and “if we find something better, I would love to do it.”
Trump’s Court Cases
Trump spun the facts in claiming that he “won every one” of the court cases against him, “and the rest are in the process of being won.” He said the charges against him were “all being dropped. It’s all been discredited.” He didn’t win any of the cases filed since he left office, and they haven’t been “discredited.” Instead, the criminal cases largely have been upended by Trump being elected.
In the federal case concerning Trump’s attempts to remain in office after losing the 2020 presidential election, special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion on Nov. 25, which was granted, to dismiss the indictment charges, saying the Constitution does not allow for the prosecution of a sitting president. “It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President,” Smith wrote in the motion.
But Smith stood behind the investigation and the charges. The prohibition against criminal prosecution of a sitting president “is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” Smith wrote in his motion. The dismissal was “without prejudice,” which means it is at least possible that charges could be refiled after Trump leaves office.
The same day and for the same reason, Smith filed a motion to dismiss his appeal in the federal case involving Trump’s handling of classified materials. In his motion, Smith noted that the appeal, as it relates to Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, “will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them.”
In the New York state criminal case, Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal election law violations regarding hush-money payments over an alleged affair. But Trump wasn’t sentenced in the case. His lawyers argued in a Dec. 2 motion that the indictment should be dismissed and verdicts vacated, citing presidential immunity, the Presidential Transition Act and the Constitution’s supremacy clause. The judge in the case still needs to rule on the motion.
In Georgia, where Trump was indicted for trying to change the outcome of the election in that state, Trump’s lawyers on Dec. 4 filed a motion to have the case dismissed because of Trump’s election.
There are also civil cases against Trump. A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, and a New York judge ruled in February that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of his assets in financial dealings, ordering him to pay hundreds of millions in penalties. Trump has appealed those rulings.
More on the Criminal Cases
After Welker raised the possibility of Trump receiving a presidential pardon from Biden, Trump again claimed that Biden was responsible for federal and state prosecutions of Trump – a claim that is not supported by evidence.
“[H]e’s the one that started this whole thing,” Trump said of Biden. “He got the Justice Department to go after me. And the state cases are all being run by the Justice Department, which is illegal. They had their people from the Justice Department work for Alvin Bragg in order to get something going.”
First, as we’ve written, Biden had no control over state-level prosecutors who brought cases against Trump in Manhattan and Georgia.
Also, legal experts told PolitiFact that Matthew Colangelo, a former acting associate attorney general during the first months of the Biden administration, joining Bragg’s Manhattan district attorney’s office in December 2022 does not prove that Biden instigated Trump’s 2024 conviction in that case. The experts said it is not unusual for prosecutors to move from federal to state or local offices, and the investigation into Trump’s activity originally began in 2018, before Biden was president.
In addition, in congressional testimony in June, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was appointed by Biden, said that the Department of Justice “had nothing to do with” Colangelo being hired by Bragg.
As for Trump’s federal cases, in November 2022, Garland did authorize special prosecutor Jack Smith to investigate Trump for his post-presidency handling of classified documents as well as any potential unlawful interference with the certification of the 2020 election results. Those investigations led to two federal indictments against Trump. But Biden has long denied being involved in those federal cases.
Not the ‘Greatest Economy’
Trump claimed that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 “we had the greatest economy in the history of our country.”
As we have written many times before, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product growth is a widely used measure of economic well-being. By this measure, the U.S. didn’t have the “greatest economy” under Trump, and the U.S. economy started to cool prior to the pandemic.
Real GDP during Trump’s term peaked at 3% in 2018 and declined to 2.6% in 2019 before collapsing in 2020, when the pandemic hit the U.S., according to the BEA. Since 1930, the real GDP grew more than 3% a total of 48 times — including six consecutive years under Ronald Reagan, ranging from 7.2% in 1984 to 3.5% in 1986 and 1987.
Tariffs
When Welker suggested that Trump’s proposal for new tariffs on U.S. imports of goods from Canada, Mexico and China could raise costs for consumers in the U.S., Trump pushed back, falsely claiming that tariffs “cost Americans nothing.”
But as we’ve written, U.S. importers – not foreign countries – pay the tariffs in the form of customs duties, which are collected at ports of entry by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And economists say that in many cases, those importers pass their increased costs on to consumers through price hikes.
In fact, a June analysis by the pro-business Tax Foundation estimated that tariffs Trump imposed on steel, aluminum, washing machines and other products in 2018 and 2019 amounted to “nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans.” The analysis also pointed to examples of additional economic studies that found that those “tariffs have raised prices and lowered economic output and employment since the start of the trade war in 2018.”
Inflation
Trump again falsely claimed that “we had no inflation” during the Trump administration, and he also made the false claim that at the beginning of the Biden administration “they didn’t have inflation for a year and a half” because of Trump’s policies.
There were only three months during the Trump administration when the annual rate of inflation was below 1%, as measured by the 12-month change in the Consumer Price Index. Those months were April, May and June of 2020 — all at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which greatly reduced economic activity globally.
As of February 2020, just before the pandemic was declared in March, the annual rate of inflation was 2.3%, and under Trump it was as high as 2.9% in June and July of 2018. When Biden entered the White House in January 2021, the annual inflation rate was 1.4%. But the rate increased quickly, rising almost monthly until reaching 9.1% in June 2022 – the highest level in about 40 years. The rate of inflation declined from there, but didn’t drop below 3% until July 2024, and it was 2.6% as of the 12 months ending in October.
Experts told us in 2022 that several factors led to high inflation in the U.S. and other countries, including pandemic-related issues with supply and demand, as well as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that year (and retaliatory sanctions the U.S. and other countries placed on Russia). Trump claimed that the Biden administration “created inflation with energy and with spending too much,” but experts said while stimulus spending played a role, the main culprit for inflation was the economic fallout from the pandemic.
Zero-Tolerance Policy
When Welker asked Trump if he planned to revive his first administration’s “zero-tolerance policy” on illegal immigration, which resulted in some family members being separated, Trump repeated the misleading claim that “you also had it with Obama.”
The Obama and Trump administrations did not have the same enforcement policy, as we’ve written.
The Trump administration policy, which lasted for over two months in 2018, required the Department of Homeland Security to refer to the Justice Department all adults who illegally crossed the southern border for criminal prosecution. That resulted in families who migrated illegally being separated, when children were taken from their parents, who entered the federal court system and were placed in detention centers for adults only.
Although there were some cases when such families were separated during the Obama administration, experts told us that, prior to Trump, there was no blanket policy to prosecute parents and separate them from their children. Previous administrations largely used family detention facilities, the experts said.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
President Joe Biden is one of only a few presidents who have granted pardons to a relative. But social media posts falsely claim that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush also pardoned family members. While Billy Carter and Neil Bush faced controversies, neither was criminally charged nor received a pardon.
Full Story
On Dec. 1, President Joe Biden granted his son, Hunter, “a full and unconditional pardon” for any crimes “he has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024.
In June, Hunter Biden was convicted of three felonies related to his purchase and possession of a Cobra Colt revolver in 2018. According to the prosecution, the president’s son violated federal law by owning the gun as an active drug user and by lying about his drug use on a federal form necessary to purchase the gun. The sentencing trial for the case was scheduled for Dec. 12.
In September, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes for tax years 2016 through 2019. The sentencing trial for that case was scheduled for Dec. 16.
Joe Biden is one of a few presidents who have pardoned a relative. In 2001, on his last day in office, then-President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, who was sentenced to two years in prison in 1985 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In December 2020, then-President Donald Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who was sentenced to two years in prison in 2005 for filing false tax returns, making false statements to the FEC and retaliating against a witness.
But social media users have falsely claimed that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush also pardoned relatives.
The claim originated on X on Dec. 2, where it was posted by Grant Stern, an editor for the advocacy group Occupy Democrats. Stern wrote: “Jimmy Carter pardoned his brother Billy Carter who took over $200,000 from Libya as its foreign agent. George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil Bush for his role in the S&L scandals of the 1980s. Nobody thinks those pardons defined either presidency. Joe Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden won’t either.”
The claim was also shared on Threads.
Billy Carter and Neil Bush were both embroiled in controversies, but they were not criminally charged or convicted and they did not receive pardons.
Between 1978 and 1979, Billy Carter received $220,000 from the Libyan government and later registered as a foreign agent for that country. A Senate inquiry launched in 1980 found that Billy Carter’s relationship with Libya was “contrary to the interests of the President and the United States,” but found “no evidence” that any Carter administration policy decisions were influenced by the relationship.
In 1991, Neil Bush settled a civil suit with federal regulators over the failure of Silverado Banking, Savings, & Loans, where he was a board member from 1985 to 1988. Silverado collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1 billion. While Neil Bush and other former directors and officials were accused of gross negligence and ordered to pay $26.5 million to regulators, they did not face criminal charges.
Article II, Section 2 gives presidents the power to grant pardons only for “offences against the United States,” meaning criminal offenses. Therefore, a president cannot grant a pardon for a federal civil claim or state criminal charges or civil claims.
Sources
Bates, James. “Neil Bush and U.S. Settle Suit Over Failure of S&L; : Thrifts: $49.5-million accord involving 10 others from firm is one of largest negotiated by banking regulators.” Los Angeles Times. 30 May 1991.
Bruggeman, Lucien. “Hunter Biden’s sentencing on gun charges pushed back 1 more week.” ABC. 26 Sep 2024.
Chase, Randall, et al. “President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all three felonies in federal gun trial.” Associated Press. 11 Jun 2024.
Cohen, Marshall, and Holmes Lybrand. “Hunter Biden convicted on all 3 charges at federal gun trial.” CNN. 11 Jun 2024.
Cohen, Marshall, et al. “Hunter Biden pleads guilty to federal tax charges, in surprise move on brink of trial.” CNN. 5 Sep 2024.
Lardner, George. “Intelligence Confirmed Billy Got Libyan Money.” New York Times. 22 Jul 1980.
Liptak, Kevin. “Biden says he won’t pardon son if he’s convicted at trial.” CNN. 5 Jun 2024.
Masih, Niha. “With Hunter pardon, Biden joins short list of presidents who absolved family.” Washington Post. 2 Dec 2024.
Nicholas, Peter, and Jonathan Allen. “The White House says no, but questions about Joe Biden pardoning his son persist.” NBC. 16 Dec 2023.
Office of Special Counsel David C. Weiss. “Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.” Press release. 5 Sep 2024.
Office of U.S. Attorney Scott Resnik. “Political Contributor and Developer Charles Kushner Sentenced to Maximum 24 Months for Witness Retaliation and Other Crimes.” Press release. 4 Mar 2024.
White House. “Statement from President Joe Biden.” Press release. 1 Dec 2024.
White House. “Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency.” 23 Dec 2020.
Yilek, Caitlin. “Biden still does not plan to pardon his son Hunter, White House says.” CBS. 7 Nov 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma, misleadingly suggested that vaccines might cause autism because “there’s not been a direct study on each individual vaccine.”
While he’s technically right about the studies, multiple vaccines and ingredients have been extensively tested, turning up no credible links. Moreover, research shows autism begins to develop well before any childhood vaccines are given.
Mullin’s comment came in a Nov. 17 exchange with host Kristen Welker, who asked if Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on vaccines were a “deal breaker” in confirming Kennedy as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, as we have written, is a vocal advocate against vaccination and co-founder of the anti-vaccination group Children’s Health Defense.
“No, I absolutely appreciate Bobby Kennedy taking a hard look at the vaccines,” Mullin replied, adding that he found Kennedy, a lawyer, “extremely intelligent when it comes to this stuff” and that “some of the stuff does raise a lot of questions.”
Noting that Mullin had previously said vaccines are safe and effective, Welker again asked Mullin whether he was concerned about Kennedy as HHS secretary. (On multiple occasions, Mullin has called the COVID-19 vaccines safe and effective, although he has opposed workplace and military vaccine requirements.)
Mullin, Nov. 17: I have said that there’s some positives to vaccinations. I’ve also questioned vaccines multiple times. And I think they should be questioned. For instance, why is America highest in autism? What is causing that? Is it our diet? Or is it some of the stuff we’re putting in our children’s system? We used to be — used to be almost not even heard of, then it went from 1 to 10,000, and then 1 to 5,000 and 1 to 2,000. In some races right now, 1 out of every 36 kids by the age of 3 had developed some form of autism. What is causing that? And if it is the vaccines, there’s no — nothing wrong with actually taking a hard look and finding, is that what’s causing it. Is it something else that we’re putting in our systems? We do know we’re not as healthy as we should be right now. We’re the most developed country in the world, so all things should be on the table. And if that’s scrutinizing vaccinations, then that is exactly where we need to go.
Welker: Senator, I just have to say, no credible expert or study has shown a link between vaccines and autism. So I just want to be on the record with that. Very quickly, though, because we’re almost out of time –
Mullin: Exactly. But when we ask about the studies for the vaccines, Kristen – I know, but when we ask about the vaccines and the study that was done specific for autism, it’s extremely vague. And in fact, there’s not been a direct study on each individual vaccine if it has the possibility of causing it. They have an overall reaching view. And I ask these questions because I sat on health [committees] in the House and on the Senate. And we have got almost no answers on that.
We contacted Mullin’s office, asking which vaccines should be tested, what was “vague” about the studies and what might have been said — or not — in Congress, but did not receive a reply.
No Link Between Vaccines and Autism, Lack of Biological Plausibility
Contrary to Mullin’s suggestion that scientists haven’t taken “a hard look” at vaccines as a possible cause of autism, there is an extensive body of research refuting any link.
Much of this work has focused on the MMR, or measles, mumps and rubella, vaccine, as this vaccine was the first proposed — fraudulently, as it turned out — to be possibly connected to autism.
But other work has centered on ingredients such as thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that was once in several childhood vaccines. Yet other work has examined whether childhood vaccines collectively are associated with autism or similar conditions. Time and time again, scientists have not found any credible links between vaccines and autism.
It’s true, then, that not all vaccines have been individually investigated for a potential role in autism. But citing that is a flawed and misleading argument that misconstrues the current understanding of autism and the scientific process. (Some vaccines, such as the COVID-19 or HPV vaccines, have not been tested with respect to autism because they are too new or are given later in life to be possibly related to the condition.)
“You can’t test all vaccines for all things all the time,” Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told us, adding that scientists need to work off of some kind of biological plausibility.
He called Mullin’s premise “false.” People opposed to vaccination, Offit said, often default to such claims since it’s always true that there’s some variable that hasn’t been tested. “It’s their whack-a-mole strategy,” he said.
Notably, when U.K. gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield proposed in a 1998 study that the MMR vaccine might be causing autism via intestinal inflammation, it seemed plausible enough for scientists to investigate. Autism symptoms frequently became apparent around the time an MMR dose was given, which led some to wonder if it could be the cause.
Wakefield’s study, however, which included just 12 patients and no control children who hadn’t been vaccinated, didn’t prove anything and was flawed (and later retracted). Scientists also learned that even though autism cannot always be diagnosed until later, subtle indications of the condition occur prior to the first MMR dose at 1 year.
In any case, researchers went on to rigorously evaluate whether there was any relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. In many cohort and case control studies, including several very large studies in different parts of the world, scientists found no associations between the receipt of the measles or MMR vaccine and an increased risk of autism, even in children at increased risk of the condition. Wakefield was later exposed as having faked the original data that had given rise to the initial concern and stripped of his medical license.
Attention then moved to the possibility that the small amounts of mercury in thimerosal — which was never present in the MMR vaccine, but was in numerous other childhood vaccines — could be related to autism. That’s despite the fact that the preservative had been used for decades and the type of mercury it contains is different from the kind that can be toxic when it accumulates in fish and the environment. Numerous studies, covering vaccines that protect against hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), influenza, and diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis — in children and in pregnant people — proceeded to show no association between thimerosal versus non-thimerosal vaccines and autism or higher or cumulative doses of mercury or thimerosal and autism.
Unrelated to concerns about autism, the U.S. began removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines in 1999 as a precautionary measure. Despite this, autism rates have continued to soar. This is yet more evidence that the preservative has nothing to do with autism.
Arguments that vaccines in some other way could cause autism then morphed to the idea that too many vaccines might overwhelm the immune system and trigger autism in at-risk children. Although there isn’t a good scientific basis for this notion, scientists once again conducted studies to address these concerns, finding no link between vaccination and autism. A 2013 study, for example, found that increasing exposure to immune-stimulating substances in vaccines during the first two years of life was not associated with an increased risk of autism. A 2010 study similarly found no neuropsychological benefits to 7- to 10-year-old children who delayed or skipped their recommended vaccines in their first year, compared with kids who received them on time.
After so much testing of vaccines under a variety of potential hypotheses, it’s unclear what more testing would reveal.
Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine who develops low-cost vaccines for developing countries and has a daughter with autism, told us in an email that “the studies showing no links between vaccines and autism can be expensive and take years to demonstrate the absence of a link. … As a result these studies tend to only be done in response to a specific assertion.”
Testing each vaccine, he added, “would likely cost American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to show a negative result, when the money is better spent on the neurodevelopmental biology of autism or what parents really need, which is support for their families.”
Beyond the many studies that have evaluated vaccines, scientists’ understanding of autism has also grown in the intervening years, making it implausible that childhood vaccines could cause the condition.
“We now know that the neurodevelopmental processes leading to autism begi[n] in early fetal development, well before a child ever receives a vaccine,” Hotez said, noting that autism is primarily genetic in origin. He is the author of a book that relates his experience with his daughter and explains why vaccines do not cause autism.
Offit noted, too, that even if individual autism-focused studies have not been done for each vaccine, all vaccines are monitored for possible side effects through various vaccine safety surveillance systems. This has successfully identified several serious side effects, he said, which invariably occur soon after vaccination, “at the time when your immune response to the pathogen with the vaccine is at its greatest.”
Autism Prevalence
As for Mullin’s concern about the rising prevalence of autism, as we’ve explained before, researchers are not even certain there is much of a true increase in the condition. In the 1960s and ’70s, several studies pegged the autism rate to be around 1 to 5 per 10,000 children — far lower than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2020 estimate of 276 in 10,000, or 1 in 36. But the older studies used much more limited definitions of the condition. The rising rate of autism is largely thought to be due to better detection over time and changes in autism’s clinical definition.
Mullin also incorrectly suggested that a high frequency of autism is unique to the U.S. Climbing autism rates are a global phenomenon. And although no data exist that make direct comparisons possible, a number of countries have similar, if not higher, reported rates.
A census in Northern Ireland, for example, found as many as 5.0% of schoolchildren had an autism diagnosis in 2022-2023 — more than the 2.8% in the U.S. in 2020. A 2022 systematic review of various studies around the world also found higher rates of autism in places such as Japan, Iceland, Nigeria and Australia than in the U.S. — although again, none of these figures should be directly compared. Scientists think most of the difference in autism prevalence between countries comes down to different methodologies, awareness and cultural factors.
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.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
On Dec. 1, President Joe Biden provided a blanket pardon for his son, Hunter, for any potential crimes committed over a 10-year period. In the statement Biden provided to justify his reversal of position, he left out a few inconvenient facts:
He claimed Hunter Biden was “singled out” and “unfairly” prosecuted “only because he is my son,” blaming his “political opponents in Congress” for the “selective prosecution.” But multiple judges rejected that argument, saying there was no clear evidence of it.
He said others “who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions,” arguing that “Hunter was treated differently.” But prosecutors say Hunter Biden continued to commit tax crimes even after he was sober.
The Department of Justice announced on Dec. 7, 2023, that a grand jury returned a nine-count indictment against Hunter Biden, alleging that he “engaged in a four-year scheme in which he chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019 and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns.”
According to the indictment, despite making more than $7 million in income between 2016 and 2020, Hunter Biden “spent this money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes.”
Biden greets his son, Hunter Biden, at the end of the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 19. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.
On Sept. 5, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in federal court to all nine counts, including three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses. His sentencing was scheduled for Dec. 16.
On Dec. 1, the president signed a “full and unconditional pardon” for his son for “those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss.”
Weiss began his investigation of Hunter Biden during Donald Trump’s presidency, and he requested and received the appointment of special counsel by the Justice Department in 2023.
Claims of ‘Selective and Vindictive Prosecution’
The president’s claim of a “selective prosecution” echoes a failed argument made by lawyers for Hunter Biden. On Feb. 20, the lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Hunter Biden due to “selective and vindictive prosecution.”
“Since its inception in 2018, the investigation of Mr. Biden has been compromised by politics,” the motion stated. “This case follows a nearly six-year record of DOJ changing its charging decisions and upping the ante on Mr. Biden in direct response to political pressure and its own self-interests.”
“After opening an investigation at former President Trump’s behest in 2018, DOJ and IRS did nothing until 2021, when Congressmen demanded investigative records,” the motion continued. “DOJ then proposed deferred charges (after initially suggesting a non-prosecution agreement), only to change its tune and demand Mr. Biden plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges when IRS whistleblowers went public with accusations of misconduct. This led to a carefully negotiated Plea Agreement and Diversion Agreement that would have resolved all the charges in this case, but when that deal went public, was widely condemned by extremist Republicans as too lenient, and Congress decided to open an inquiry, DOJ tried to back out (even of the validly executed Diversion Agreement) and indicted Mr. Biden on the gun charges.”
Hunter Biden was convicted in June for lying on a federal form about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018. The case was formally dismissed after the pardon was issued.
The motion argued that after Special Counsel Weiss “caved to outside pressure and brought the three felony gun charges, he was summoned to testify before Congress and berated for not being even more punitive. A month later, he responded by indicting Mr. Biden on the tax charges in this Court, including felonies, when just weeks earlier he had deemed two misdemeanor charges sufficient.”
As we have written, Weiss is a registered Republican who was nominated by Trump, but Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both Democrats, played a part in selecting Weiss, because of a longstanding Senate policy that allows home-state senators to sign off on presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys.
“This case follows years of public officials targeting Mr. Biden because of his political and familial affiliations and DOJ yielding to their pressure,” the Hunter Biden motion argued. “This record should raise more than judicial misgivings. Politicians are not just wooing and wheedling, but openly interfering with this case. It is incumbent on the Court to intercede.”
In a court filing opposing the motion, Weiss called Hunter Biden’s claims of selective and vindictive prosecution “a fictitious narrative” and a baseless “conspiracy theory.”
Weiss, March 8: The defendant’s conspiratorial “upped the ante” claim is nothing more than a house of cards. The defendant fails to refute two facts that completely undermine his theory. First, on July 26, 2023, the government appeared before the court in Delaware for a hearing and at the beginning of that hearing signed the agreements the parties had negotiated. If the statements by politicians prior to the hearing truly influenced the prosecution in the way the defendant claims they did, why did the government sign the agreements and present them at the hearing? Second, to state an obvious fact that the defendant continues to ignore, former President Trump is not the President of the United States. The defendant fails to explain how President Biden or the Attorney General, to whom the Special Counsel reports, or the Special Counsel himself, or his team of prosecutors, are acting at the direction of former President Trump or Congressional Republicans, or how this current Executive Branch approved allegedly discriminatory charges against the President’s son at the direction of former President Trump and Congressional Republicans.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark S. Scarsi didn’t buy Hunter Biden’s argument. On April 1, Scarsi rejected the motion to have the indictments dismissed due to selective and vindictive prosecution.
“As the Court stated at the hearing, Defendant filed his motion without any evidence,” Scarsi wrote.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys cited “portions of various Internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs” but those “are not evidence,” Scarsi wrote. “For many of the same reasons discussed in connection with the claim of selective prosecution, the vindictive prosecution claim fails for lack of objective direct or circumstantial evidence of vindictiveness.”
Scarsi was nominated by Trump to serve as U.S. District judge for the Central District of California, and he was confirmed by the Senate with an 83-12 vote in September 2020. In a questionnaire for judicial nominees, Scarsi noted that he was a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and the conservative Federalist Society.
The same line of argument about selective and vindictive prosecution of Hunter Biden was also rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware related to federal gun charges against him.
In an April 12 order rejecting that argument, District Judge Maryellen Noreika wrote that while “the pressure campaign from Congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time that the Special Counsel decided to move forward with indictment instead of pretrial diversion” there was no credible evidence presented “to suggest that the conduct of those lawmakers (or anyone else) had any impact whatsoever on the Special Counsel. It is all speculation.”
(A pretrial diversion program is an alternative to criminal prosecution in which a person enters into alternative systems of supervision and services.)
“To the extent that Defendant’s claim that he is being selectively prosecuted rests solely on him being the son of the sitting President, that claim is belied by the facts,” Noreika wrote. “The Executive Branch that charged Defendant is headed by that sitting President – Defendant’s father. The Attorney General heading the DOJ was appointed by and reports to Defendant’s father. And that Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel who made the challenged charging decision in this case – while Defendant’s father was still the sitting President. Defendant’s claim is effectively that his own father targeted him for being his son, a claim that is nonsensical under the facts here. Regardless of whether Congressional Republicans attempted to influence the Executive Branch, there is no evidence that they were successful in doing so and, in any event, the Executive Branch prosecuting Defendant was at all relevant times (and still is) headed by Defendant’s father.”
Noreika was nominated by Trump in 2018 to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for Delaware, though she was part of a bipartisan slate of nominees and was supported by the state’s two Democratic senators. In January 2021, Law360 identified Noreika as among those then President-elect Biden was likely to consider for federal circuit judge.
Noreika further wrote that no evidence had been provided that any Republicans had “successfully influenced Special Counsel Weiss or his team in the decision to indict Defendant in this case.”
Noreika, April 12: Yet, as was the case with selective prosecution, the relevant point in time is when the prosecutor decided to no longer pursue pretrial diversion and instead indict Defendant. Whether former administration officials harbored actual animus towards Defendant at some point in the past is therefore irrelevant. This is especially true where, as here, the Court has been given no evidence or indication that any of these individuals (whether filled with animus or not) have successfully influenced Special Counsel Weiss or his team in the decision to indict Defendant in this case. At best, Defendant has generically alleged that individuals from the prior administration were or are targeting him (or his father) and therefore his prosecution here must be vindictive. The problem with this argument is that the charging decision at issue was made during this administration – by Special Counsel Weiss – at a time when the head of the Executive Branch prosecuting Defendant is Defendant’s father. Defendant has offered nothing credible to support a finding that anyone who played a role in the decision to abandon pretrial diversion and move forward with indictment here harbored any animus towards Defendant. Any claim of vindictive prosecution based on actual vindictiveness must fail.
Noreika rejected the motion.
After President Biden issued his pardon, attorneys for Hunter Biden filed a motion to have his indictment dismissed. In a motion opposing that effort, Weiss wrote, “there was none and never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case.”
Weiss noted that Hunter Biden’s attorneys appealed the dismissals of the motions alleging selective and vindictive prosecutions, and those appeals also failed.
Claims Hunter Was ‘Treated Differently’
In making the argument that Hunter was “treated differently,” President Biden said: “Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions.”
Tax law expert Keith Fogg, emeritus clinical professor at Harvard Law School, told us the plea deal that unraveled in Hunter Biden’s case “reflected a relatively typical resolution of this tax crime.”
“I agree with President Biden that most people, the vast majority, who fail to file their tax returns timely [but ultimately pay them back] face civil not criminal penalties,” Fogg told us via email. “The fact that the taxes were paid back when the IRS showed up can influence the decision to prosecute though it is not determinative. It plays a bigger role at the sentencing phase.”
What President Biden did not mention, however, is “that while the IRS rarely prosecutes the crime of failure to file and pay, the persons most likely to be prosecuted for this crime are high profile individuals like his son,” Fogg said. “Criminal prosecution is a high cost endeavor for the IRS. It generally, though not exclusively, seeks to prosecute individuals who will give it the biggest bang for the buck because of the publicity resulting from the prosecution. A movie star or other high profile individual provides a good target for prosecution because of the publicity that such a prosecution generates. The IRS uses its criminal tax program to promote compliance by showing what happens to people who fail to comply with the tax laws. … From that perspective, it’s not so surprising to see someone like Hunter Biden prosecuted where most people who commit this crime are not.”
President Biden’s description of his son as someone who was simply late paying taxes because of serious addictions “but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties,” also glosses over some claims in the indictment to which he pleaded guilty.
As Weiss detailed in his legal filing opposing Hunter Biden’s attempt to have the indictments withdrawn because of the pardon, some of Hunter Biden’s illegal activity continued after he had regained sobriety.
Weiss, March 8: Even well after the defendant had regained his sobriety, he chose not to pay his tax liabilities in 2020. Despite receiving $1.2 million in financial support from a friend [from January through October 15, 2020, according to the indictment] to maintain his lifestyle, the defendant did not make payments towards his tax obligations. Instead, he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on personal expenses, including renting a lavish house on a canal in Venice Beach, California, his Porsche, and media relations services.
The defendant also chose to lie to his accountants in 2020, again, after he had regained his sobriety. For example, the defendant falsely claimed extensive business travel in 2018 during a period in which he later described his crack cocaine use as “twenty-four hours a day, smoking every fifteen minutes, seven days a week.” The defendant lied to his accountants by claiming as business expenses $43,696 in stays at the Chateau Marmont with his “merry band of crooks, creeps, and outcasts.” He falsely claimed that payments for his daughter’s apartment rental in New York were business expenses. He falsely claimed other business expenses, including a $1,500 payment to an exotic dancer, $11,500 in payments to an escort, and a $30,000 payment for his daughter’s tuition. He falsely claimed that monies paid to women with whom he had personal relationships were wages, reducing his tax burden. The defendant falsely identified business deductions, including for a Lamborghini rental and hotel stays that he subsequently described as the locations of his months-long drug binge. He falsely represented to his accountants that a $10,000 payment to a sex club was a business expense. He falsely represented to his accountants that his business line of credit had been used for business expenses, when in fact he used it to make payments to a strip club and exotic dancer. Thus, even after he regained his sobriety, the defendant lied to his accountants in many ways so he could continue to cheat the system and attempt to evade taxes.
According to Weiss, in 2020 — after he had become sober — Hunter Biden “then chose to file a false 2018 Form 1120 that falsely categorized personal expenses as business expenses and a false 2018 Form 1040 that underreported his income.”
IRS special agent Joseph Ziegler, one of the whistleblowers in the Hunter Biden case, highlighted those facts in an interview on Fox News on Dec. 2.
“And I want to be clear on something, criminal tax evasion, what he pled guilty to, is not the fact that he didn’t timely pay or file his tax returns,” Ziegler said. “He filed false tax returns willfully when he was sober after he wrote his memoir, which he profited off of. And that’s what I want to be so clear on, is that this was conduct after he became sober. This was felony conduct after he was sober. And it was clever. And the president’s letter didn’t bring up any of that conduct.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys said in a court motion that he ultimately paid all his taxes and penalties in 2021.
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.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Elon Musk trolled President Joe Biden on X after Hunter Biden’s pardon, sharing a community note mocking the president’s previous post that said, “No one is above the law.” Soon after, a Threads post falsely claimed Musk threatened “anyone glorifying” the pardon “will be suspended from X permanently.” There’s no evidence Musk made such a statement.
Full Story
Billionaire Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Dec. 2 to mock President Joe Biden following the president’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, the day before. Musk resurfaced a six-month-old post by the president proclaiming, “No one is above the law,” highlighting a note that criticized the pardon.
Later that day, a Threads post falsely claimed that Musk had threatened to suspend users celebrating the pardon. The post alleged Musk said, “Anyone glorifying the lawlessness behind Biden pardoning his son will be suspended from X permanently.”
But a review of Musk’s public posts and statements reveals no such quote or policy announcement. Musk’s response to the pardon has been limited to amplifying the “Community Notes” on Biden’s previous post. In addition, we could not find that X has issued any policy updates or enforcement changes related to the pardon. We reached out to X for comment about the claim, but we didn’t receive a response.
Community Notes is X’s crowdsourcing feature that allows users to collaboratively add context to “potentially misleading posts.” Over time, Community Notes can be edited as contributors review and refine them.
A Community Note on the screenshot shared by Musk read: “By pardoning his son Hunter, not merely for a single crime, but for all actual or potential crimes he may or may not have created over an eleven years period, Joe Biden has made clear that some people are, in fact, above the law.” Sharing a screenshot of the post, Musk said, “Community Notes slays.”
Hunter Biden was convicted in June for lying on a federal form about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018, marking the first criminal conviction of a sitting president’s child. On Sept. 5, the president’s son pleaded guilty in federal court to nine tax-related charges, including three felonies and six misdemeanors. Prosecutors said he had engaged in a scheme to evade $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019 by subverting payroll systems, filing false returns and claiming fraudulent deductions.
Hunter Biden faced a maximum of 25 years in prison for the gun charges and 17 years for the tax offenses, although the New York Times reported that he was likely to receive significantly shorter sentences. Sentencing on the gun-related conviction was scheduled for Dec. 12, while sentencing in the tax case was set for Dec. 16.
The presidential pardon has sparked a heated political debate, with many Democrats criticizing the decision.
While Musk has been vocal about his political views and criticism of public figures, there is no record of him threatening to suspend users over their reactions to the pardon. This is not the first time Musk has been the target of misinformation. His polarizing comments and his support for President-elect Donald Trump have made him a target of false claims online, as we’ve written. In November, Trump announced that Musk and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy would head a project to reduce government waste and fraud.
Sources
Brooks, Emily and Mychael Schnell. “Multiple Democrats slam Biden pardon of Hunter.” The Hill. 2 Dec 2024.
Chase, Randall, et al. “President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial.” Associated Press. 11 Jun 2024.
Keefe, Eliza. “Musk’s Starlink Was Not Connected to Vote Tabulation, Contrary to Online Claims.” FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.
“Hunter Biden is first sitting US president’s son to be convicted of crime.” Sky News. 12 Jun 2024.
Thrush, Glenn. “What Happens Next in Hunter Biden’s Criminal Cases.” New York Times. 2 Oct 2024.
Trotta, Daniel and Eric Beech. “Trump names Elon Musk to role leading government efficiency drive.” Reuters. 13 Nov 2024.
U.S. Department of Justice. “Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.” 6 Sep 2024.
White House. “Statement from President Joe Biden.” 1 Dec 2024.
X Help Center. “About Community Notes on X.” Accessed 4 Dec 2024.
X Help Center. “The X Rules.” Accessed 4 Dec 2024.
Zinsner, Hadleigh. “Elon Musk Has Not Blocked Pride-Related Content from X, Contrary to Posts.” FactCheck.org. 22 Nov 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
President-elect Donald Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years. Social media users have wrongly claimed that Trump lost the popular vote, but they are confusing the popular vote with a majority of votes. The unofficial results show Trump received slightly less than a majority, but more votes than any candidate.
Full Story
On Nov. 6, the Associated Press called the 2024 election for President-elect Donald Trump. Trump won 312 electoral votes to Vice President Kamala Harris’ 226 votes.
While ballots are still being counted in some states, Trump very likely also won the popular vote, with 76.9 million votes compared with 74.4 million for Harris. Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote since President George W. Bush in 2004.
But some social media users have claimed Trump didn’t actually win the popular vote.
A Nov. 24 post on Threads shared the claim, writing, “Donald Trump losing the popular vote by 2% and only won because of the electoral college means that he is a DEI president.” (DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.)
Another user shared the claim in a now-deleted Instagram post from Nov. 24, which read, “DONALD J. TRUMP OFFICIALLY LOST THE 2024 POPULAR VOTE FOR POTUS.”
In comments, the user explained that since Trump did not receive at least 50% of all votes cast, he had lost the popular vote.
But this is a misunderstanding of how the popular vote is measured.
In order to win the popular vote, a candidate must only receive more votes than any other single candidate — that is, a plurality of votes. They need not win the majority of all votes cast.
Barry C. Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained to us in a Nov. 25 email, “Trump has not won an outright majority of the popular vote; that would require surpassing the 50% threshold. He has won a large plurality, which means that he attracted more votes than each of his opponents, but he is just short of a true majority.”
On election night, it seemed that Trump had won a majority of votes. But as more votes were counted, Trump’s vote total fell to 49.9% of all votes cast and Harris received 48.3%, as of Nov. 26.
Two third-party candidates — Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — received more than 750,000 votes each. As a result, neither Trump nor Harris achieved a majority of votes.
Sources
Associated Press. “2024 Presidential Election Results.” 26 Nov 2024.
Burden, Barry C. Professor of political science, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Email to FactCheck.org. 25 Nov 2024.
Decision 2024. “2024 President Results: Trump wins.” Accessed 26 Nov 2024.
Ellis, Niquel Terry. “What is DEI and why is it dividing America?” CNN. 11 Mar 2024.
Google. 2024 Election Results. Presidential results. Accessed 26 Nov 2024.
Jachim, Nick. “When was the last time the Republican Party won the popular vote?” The Hill. 6 Nov 2024.
Yoon, Robert. “Why AP called Wisconsin and the White House for Donald Trump.” Associated Press. 6 Nov 2024.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Attacks by Israeli forces and Hamas continue to kill or displace people in the Gaza Strip. But social media posts misleadingly claim Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election led Hamas to call for an end to the war in Gaza. Hamas has called for a ceasefire several times before the election. And the violence has continued since Election Day.
Full Story
Israeli airstrikes killed at least 46 people in the Gaza Strip on Nov. 12. An Israeli attack on a refugee camp school left at least 10 people dead on Nov. 16. And on Nov. 23 the Israeli military issued evacuation orders for a northern Gaza suburb due to rocket fire from Hamas.
A Palestinian boy walks on the rubble of a house destroyed in an Israeli strike at the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on Nov. 12, amid the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas. Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images.
All of this happened after it became clear on Nov. 6 that former President Donald Trump had won a second term in the White House.
But a claim that arose shortly after the election has continued to spread online, suggesting that Trump’s win resulted in an end to the violence in Gaza.
Starting the day after the election, some widely followed accounts posted a screenshot of a headline that said, “Hamas Calls for ‘Immediate’ End to War After Trump Election Win.”
Donald Trump Jr., for example, posted the screenshot on Truth Social and Instagram with the message, “It took about 12 hours after my father’s election win for Hamas to call for peace! @realDonaldTrump isn’t even president yet and he’s already getting it done. Spectacular.” Many replies to his post indicated that readers understood it to mean that Trump had ended the war.
“Trump brings world peace and saves millions of lives and liberals will somehow call him racist,” one commenter said.
Others spread similarly suggestive claims without the screenshot, including YouTube influencer and professional boxer Jake Paul, who endorsed Trump’s 2024 bid for the White House. On Nov. 7, he posted on X a list titled, “Trump 48 hours not even in office,” and included as the third item, “Hamas calls for ‘immediate end to war.’”
That claim has continued to spread. Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler posted about it on Nov. 8 and Kayleigh McEnany, who served as press secretary during Trump’s first term, repeated the claim on the Nov. 11 episode of her Fox News show, “Outnumbered.”
And it continues to spread across social media. Another list of Trump’s supposed pre-inauguration accomplishments posted to Facebook on Nov. 16 says Hamas has called for an immediate end to the war and claims, “It has been ONLY 11 days since Donald J. Trump elected, there’s already PEACE around the WORLD.”
But, of course, Trump’s election has not yet ushered in peace in Gaza, and any posts suggesting that it has are wrong.
“It’s impossible for that to be true because the battle is still going on on multiple fronts,” Ibrahim Abusharif, a professor of journalism and strategic communication at Northwestern University in Qatar, told us in an interview. The fact that the claim is proliferating so widely on social media “just reminds us again that this is an unreliable space for information, for facts, and for truth telling,” he said.
The headline at the root of this claim is real. It appeared on Newsweek’s website on Nov. 6. But presenting it on its own, detached from the accompanying story, is misleading since it could be used to suggest that Trump is responsible for ending the violence in Gaza.
The full story explains that a senior Hamas official told Newsweek: “The election of Trump as the 47th president of the USA is a private matter for the Americans, but Palestinians look forward to an immediate cessation of the aggression against our people, especially in Gaza, and look for assistance in achieving their legitimate rights of freedom, independence, and the establishment of their independent self-sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.” (As president, Trump proposed a “realistic two-state solution” in 2020 with Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital.”)
Hamas’ calls for an end to the violence aren’t new. The group has sought a ceasefire at several points since Israeli forces struck Gaza following the Hamas-led terror attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas militants killed about 1,200 people in Israel and abducted 254. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by the Hamas-controlled government, has reported more than 44,000 people killed in Gaza since the war began.
Forecasting what effect the incoming Trump administration may have on the war between Israel and Hamas is difficult, experts agree.
“Donald Trump’s election introduces new uncertainty into Middle East affairs,” Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, wrote on Nov. 14.
Sachs suggested that the Arab Gulf states and Israel “may now be eager to give Trump early ‘wins,’ to capitalize on the relationship for their own interests and in the hope that Trump shows more flexibility as he enters office.”
“Trump historically, and those around him, have been very sympathetic to Israel,” Warren Strobel, the Wall Street Journal’s intelligence and security reporter, answered when asked at a panel discussion what the Trump administration would likely mean for the conflict there. “I think you will see, by and large, support for Israel in the region.”
Strobel predicted the Trump administration would likely increase its previous maximum pressure campaign aimed at reigning in Iran’s nuclear program, largely by imposing economic sanctions, which could affect funding for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon and funded largely by Iran, clashed with Israel immediately after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack, leading to a more than yearlong fight on the Israel-Lebanon border. On Nov. 26, 2024, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement. The deal does not end the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
It’s unclear exactly what impact Trump’s second presidency will have on the war in Gaza.
“He’s fickle,” Abusharif said of Trump’s likely approach. “He has a history of making muscular promises and not following up.”
So we don’t know what will happen in Gaza during Trump’s next term. But we do know that the fighting continues, regardless of the results of the U.S. election.
Sources
Associated Press. “Israeli strikes kill dozens in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, medics say.” 13 Nov 2024.
Reuters. “Israeli strike kills 10 at Gaza school sheltering displaced families, medics say.” 16 Nov 2024.
Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. “Israeli army orders Gaza City suburb evacuated.” Reuters. 24 Nov 2024.
Abusharif, Ibrahim. Professor of journalism and strategic communication, Northwestern University in Qatar. Zoom interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.
O’Connor, Tom. “Hamas Calls for ‘Immediate’ End to War After Trump Election Win.” Newsweek. Updated 9 Nov 2024.
Nakhoul, Samia, et al. “Netanyahu calls Hamas ceasefire proposal ‘delusional’ but Blinken sees scope for progress.” Reuters. 7 Feb 2024.
Magdy, Samy and Drew Callister. “Here’s what’s on the table for Israel and Hamas in the latest cease-fire plan.” Associated Press. 7 May 2024.
Al-Mughrabi, Nidal and Maytaal Angel. “Gaza ceasefire: Hamas says again it wants implementation, not more talks.” Reuters. 13 Aug 2024.
Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. “Hamas says Israel still blocking ceasefire agreement.” Reuters. 6 Oct 2024.
Reuters. “Hamas open to discussing new deal securing end to Gaza war, Israeli pull-out, group official says.” 29 Oct 2024.
U.S. Department of State. Press release. “Anniversary of October 7th Attack.” 7 Oct 2024.
Shurafa, Wafaa and Fatma Khaled. “Death toll in Gaza from Israel-Hamas war passes 44,000, Palestinian officials say.” Associated Press. 21 Nov 2024.
Brookings Institution. “How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?” 14 Nov 2024.
The Hayden Center (@HaydenCenter). “New Term, New Challenges: National Security in the Trump Administration.” YouTube. 20 Nov 2024.
U.S. Department of State. “Maximum Pressure Campaign on the Regime in Iran.” 4 Apr 2019.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick Take
Some states were still counting ballots weeks after Election Day in accordance with their regulations, state officials and an election law expert said. But an Instagram post misleadingly implied that the ongoing vote counts were evidence of some unspecified election malfeasance.
Full Story
The 2024 presidential election was called by the Associated Press for President-elect Donald Trump the day after the Nov. 5 general election. Trump won 312 electoral college votes, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, who received 226.
Results announced by the media on Election Day or shortly after are projections, and always have been, factoring in a combination of the votes that had been reported, exit polling and other statistics, Justin Levitt, an elections law expert at Loyola Marymount University’s law school, told us in an email. But they are not official election results, which cannot occur until all eligible votes are counted. Most state laws give local election officials two to three weeks to officially certify election returns, Levitt said.
“In the nation’s history, there has literally never been an official presidential election result on Election Night,” Levitt said. “Local election officials aren’t legally permitted to decide elections based on projections, which is why we don’t just award the election to the person who’s leading in the polls.”
But Trump and other Republicans and conservative commentators, such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, for years have made false and unfounded accusations of cheating by the Democrats in presidential elections.
Trump, for instance, repeatedly made baseless, false and misleading claims that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged,” citing conspiracies involving the Department of Justice, Dominion Voting Systems and local election officials, as we’ve previously written.
After the 2024 election, a Nov. 18 Instagram post shared a screenshot of a post on X that said: “Arizona is still counting votes… Georgia is still counting votes… California is still counting votes… Pennsylvania is still counting votes… North Carolina is still counting votes… CAN YOU SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING?”
The Instagram post received nearly 13,000 likes, and some comments on the post claimed it was evidence of cheating and election fraud.
The original post on X also came from an account, @CharlieKNews, that named itself Charlie Kirk News, using a photo of Kirk as its avatar. The post has since been taken down. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point Action, the political advocacy arm of Turning Point USA, told us in an email that the post from @CharlieKNews “is not run by Charlie Kirk or his team. It’s a fan account and we have no idea what they mean.”
Impact Possible on Downballot Races
Election officials are required to count each valid ballot, Levitt said. That process is relatively quick for most ballots but can be slower for mail, overseas and provisional ballots that require some additional work in determining whether they are actually valid, he said.
There were still hundreds of thousands of ballots that needed to be counted as of Nov. 22, the majority of which were overseas ballots or checks on provisional ballots. “We’re very much on track for that to happen on time, exactly as it’s supposed to,” Levitt said.
There was a momentary delay in the counting of votes in Pennsylvania due to a legal dispute, in which the state Supreme Court on Nov. 18 directed county election officials not to count some mail-in ballots that arrived on time but were in envelopes that included handwritten dates that were incorrect.
“Outside of that, there’s no ‘delay’ at all,” said Levitt, referring to the counting of votes nationwide throughout the general election.
There is also “no prospect” that the number of outstanding ballots that still need to be counted will change the overall presidential election winner in any state, Levitt said.
However, the uncounted ballots could decide other downballot races with smaller vote margins. That includes the race for California’s 45th Congressional District where, as of Nov. 22, Democratic candidate Derek Tran was leading Republican candidate Michelle Steel by just a few hundred votes.
“These margins are exactly why we take the time to count every valid ballot, rather than just declaring a result that we’re not sure about,” Levitt said. “Local election officials in all of the states are working methodically through a very careful process to get the final count right, exactly as they should be.”
Election Offices Follow State Laws
Election offices in each of the five states listed in the social media post have all said either to us or in publicly available posts, press releases or videos that their ballot-counting processes are moving forward as anticipated and in accordance with their respective state laws.
“Georgia has been done [counting its ballots] for over a week now,” Robert Sinners, spokesperson for Georgia’s secretary of state, told us in an email. He said Georgia’s deadline for counties to complete their counting and certify their votes was Nov. 12 — six days before the Nov. 18 Instagram post.
The state launched an audit of the presidential election on Nov. 14 that hand-counted randomly selected ballots in each of Georgia’s 159 counties. The state announced the results of the audit on Nov. 20.
“Election denialism needs to end, now,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told us in a statement. “We are a country of laws and principles, not of men and personalities. Do your job! Follow the law. Accept election results or lose your country.”
It typically takes about 10 to 13 days for Arizona to tabulate all its ballots, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in a Nov. 16 video posted on X.
As of the morning of Nov. 19, about 6,000 ballots needed to be counted in Arizona’s Yuma County, JP Martin, a spokesperson for the Arizona secretary of state, told us in an email. The office was anticipating a recount for one legislative district, and there may be other local races that could require recounts that would be conducted at the county level, Martin added.
As of Nov. 14, California needed to process and verify eligibility of about 1.8 million ballots, said Secretary of State Shirley Weber during a press conference that day. By Nov. 22, the estimated number of uncounted ballots was down to more than 315,000, according to the secretary of state’s website.
The lengthy timeline for processing votes in California was anticipated due to the state’s rules and regulations, Weber said.
California will receive its first actual count from all of the state’s 58 counties on Dec. 6, Weber said. The secretary of state will then have a week to certify the state’s results on Dec. 13.
“California’s election process is designed with a core commitment to recognizing and basically accurately counting each and every eligible vote that comes into our office,” Weber said. “This approach involves a series of rigorous checks and safeguards, including signature verification, machine audits and manual counts.”
There was no delay in counting the votes in Pennsylvania, Matt Heckel, press secretary at the Pennsylvania Department of State, told us in an email. Final election results have never been finalized on election night since “processing and counting millions of ballots takes time,” Heckel said.
Official results in Pennsylvania will be certified after all ballots have been adjudicated, including provisional, absentee and mail ballots that need identifications verified, as well as absentee ballots from military and overseas civilian voters, Heckel said.
By Nov. 12, when Pennsylvania counties reported their unofficial returns, 60,366 provisional ballots and 20,155 mail-in and absentee ballots remained uncounted. County boards also needed to make final resolutions about which of those ballots are valid and eligible, Heckel added.
Heckel said the Department of State wouldn’t have any updated uncounted ballot numbers until Nov. 25, when county elections boards are required to certify their returns with the secretary of the commonwealth.
By Nov. 15, final votes had been counted in nearly all of North Carolina’s counties, Patrick Gannon, spokesperson for the state’s board of elections, told us in an email.
However, as of Nov. 19, some counties were still going through their research on provisional ballots to determine which should be counted, he said. And a couple of counties still needed to “reopen their canvasses” to remove ballots in cases where early voters were deemed ineligible to vote because they did not confirm their address when they registered, Gannon said.
North Carolina state law requires provisional ballots and some absentee ballots to be counted after Election Day and before the county canvass – the day county elections boards meet to certify their results – which occurred 10 days after the election on Nov. 15, Gannon said.
“It’s impossible to count eligible ballots that election officials do not have yet,” he said.
A few contests throughout the state are eligible for recounts. That includes local races and the race for North Carolina’s State Supreme Court seat, in which incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs held a roughly 600-vote lead over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin.
But, according to Gannon, the number of uncounted ballots is not enough to flip any contest.
Sources
Yoon, Robert. “Why AP called Wisconsin and the White House for Donald Trump.” Associated Press. 6 Nov 2024.
Associated Press. “Election 2024.” Accessed 21 Nov 2024.
Levitt, Justin. Law professor, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Law School. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.
McLean, Danielle. “Post Misrepresents Impact of Voter Registrations Delivered to Maricopa County.” FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2024.
Robertson, Lori, et al. “Trump Repeats Baseless, False Claims About the Election.” FactCheck.org. 1 Dec 2020.
Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Dominion’s Defamation Lawsuits Are Still Active.” FactCheck.org. 3 Jun 2021
Farley, Robert. “Trump Sticks With Bogus Voter Fraud Claims.” FactCheck.org. 28 Nov 2024.
Kolvet, Andrew. Turning Point Action spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 18 Nov 2024.
Lo Wang, Hansi. “Pennsylvania’s high court sides with Republicans on misdated mail ballots.” NPR. 18 Nov 2024.
Levy, Marc. “Pennsylvania Senate contest headed toward a recount, and possibly litigation.” Associated Press. 14 Nov 2024.
Associated Press. “California 45th Congressional District.” Accessed 21 Nov 2024.
Sinners, Robert. Georgia Secretary of State spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.
Georgia Secretary of State. “Georgia’s 2024 Statewide Risk Limiting Audit Confirms Voting System Accuracy.” 20 Nov 2024.
@AZSecretary. “Accurate election results take time. Arizona law requires counties to finalize results by Nov 21, 2024. The SOS’s Office will canvass results no later than Nov 25, 2024. This provides time to ensure that all eligible ballots are counted. #TrustedInfo2024 #TimeforAccuracy.” X. 16 Nov 2024.
MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod. “A handful of 2024 Az races are headed to recounts, including one legislative seat.” TucsonSentinel.com. 20 Nov 2024.
California Secretary of State. Press Conference. 14 Nov 2024.
Heckel, Matt. Spokesperson, Pennsylvania Department of State. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.
Pennsylvania Department of State. “2024 Election Calendar.” Accessed 20 Nov 2024.
Gannon, Patrick. Spokesperson, North Carolina State Board of Elections. 19 Nov 2024.
North Carolina State Board of Elections. “County Canvass | 2024 General Election.” Accessed 20 Nov 2024.
Robertson, Gary D. “A recount will happen in the extremely close race for a North Carolina court seat.” Associated Press. 19 Nov 2024.
