Did Jared Kushner Delete Tweets After News Surfaced About Trump's Taxes?
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020.
In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law. Memes are frequently circulated online containing a quip ostensibly uttered by Robin Williams to the effect that "politicians should wear sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers": Robin Williams   This quote is, in fact, a reasonably faithful paraphrase of the following bit from Robin Williams' 2009 television comedy special, "Weapons of Self Destruction":  Weapons of Self Destruction And if the whole health care debate -- if you want to know how your congressmen and senators are going to vote, we should actually, maybe they should be like NASCAR drivers. They should actually have to have jackets with the names of all the people who are sponsoring them. Wouldn't that be cool? Then you might have a clue to why the fuck they voted that way. Williams, who died in 2014, also made a similar joke as the character Tom Dobbs in the 2006 movie "Man of the Year." In that film, Dobbs says: "If you're representing special interest groups, maybe we should be like NASCAR with the little patches on the back: 'Enron: We take your money and run!'" This line can be heard around the 50 second mark of the "Man of the Year" trailer:  This 2006 movie, however, was not the first time someone suggested that politicians should have to display their corporate sponsorships.  In 2004, for instance, columnist Paul Halvey wrote in the Illinois newspaper "The Life" that "when a company springs for a political campaign contributions, it should be able to put its logo on the politician." Five years earlier, in 1999, columnist Jim Hightower made a similar suggestion, writing: The Life writing We'd like to mandate full and forceful disclosuremake every politician or candidate own up to where every dollar of their money's coming from. Maybe we could even make 'em wear their sponsors' logos like NASCAR drivers do, as in the illustrations in this issue. But this idea dates back at least a little further. The earliest example we could find comes from a column published in March 1995 in the Harford Courant entitled "Politicians Should Wear Sponsor Logos" by journalist Don Noel:  08 Mar 1995, Wed Hartford Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) Newspapers.com  08 Mar 1995, Wed Hartford Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) Newspapers.com We're not sure who came up with the exact phrasing of the viral version of the joke. The idea that politicians should wear the logos of their corporate sponsors on their clothes, similar to NASCAR drivers, has been circulating since the 1990s. While it doesn't seem as if this quote originated with Williams, he did tell the joke in a 2009 TV special, and the concept served as a basis for a line his character said in the 2006 film "Man of the Year." Robin Williams: Weapons of Self Destruction. Directed by Marty Callner, David Steinberg Entertainment, 2009.  Update [Aug. 16, 2022]: Rating changed to "Correct Attribution" with citation of comedy bit from Williams' 2009 TV special, "Weapons of Self Destruction." U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, recently invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to drum up support for raising taxes for a new stimulus program.During a June 5floor speech, Connolly lamented the refusal of House Republican leaders to allow the American Jobs Act to come up for a vote. The bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, calls for $447 billion over 10 years to pay for infrastructure and school improvements, new job training programs, unemployment insurance, and temporary tax cuts for working families and small businesses.The stimulus would be funded by levying taxes on corporations and people earning more than $1 million a year.Connolly said the House, in considering the legislation, should ask, What would Ronald Reagan do?Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt, Connolly said. Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.Lets start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.So its accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but theres a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nations tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.Reagans efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. As a result, Reagan was willing to accept and sometimes promote proposals that would close loopholes and create a broader tax base, according to C. Eugene Steuerle, who organized the Treasury Department's 1984-86 tax reform effort and is now a fellow at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center.This April, President Barack Obama said Reagan understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. PolitiFact National rated the claimMostly True, noting that Reagan did not repeatedly propose increases but agreed to tax hikes put forth by Congress.Our rulingConnolly said Reagan, as president raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan did, in fact, sign off on at least one tax increase during each of those years.Some of the increases were modest in scope. And its important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nations GDP, went down during Reagans presidency.But theres no doubt that Reagan was willing to cut budget deals that included raising revenues. We rate Connollys statement True. During an Oct. 4, 2011, interview on MSNBC, host Ed Schultz and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., discussed the Occupy Wall Street protests, which are targeting the financial services sector. Sanders offered a statistic designed to demonstrate the power of American banks.Sanders suggested that many of the protesters have not seen the president be as strong as he should be on Wall Street, saying they want the federal government to take tougher measures against financial-services companies.Ed, today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America, Sanders said. (GDP stands for gross domestic product. )We wondered whether Sanders math was correct.When we contacted Sanders office, a spokesman providedtestimonyto a congressional oversight panel by Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School ofManagement. Our six largest bank holding companies currently have assets valued at just over 63 percent of GDP, Johnson testified, citing figures for the fourth quarter of 2010. This is up from around 55 percent of GDP before the crisis (e.g., 2006) and no more than 17 percent of GDP in 1995.We wanted to find the original statistics, and we located them in achartposted by the National Information Center, the federal repository of data about banks and other institutions for which the Federal Reserve has a supervisory, regulatory or research interest. The chart lists the 50 biggest bank holding companies as of June 30, 2011.Here are the top six and their total assets:1.Bank of America Corp., $2.264 trillion2.J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., $2.246 trillion3.Citigroup Inc., $1.957 trillion4.Wells Fargo & Co., $1.260 trillion5.Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $937 billion6.Morgan Stanley, $831 billionTogether, the top six companies assets were $9.495 trillion.For the second part of the equation -- gross domestic product -- we turned to the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis.Though the time spans dont line up perfectly, we decided to use the GDP figure for 2010, the most recent full year. That figure is $14.527 trillion.Dividing these top banks assets by the national GDP produces a result of 65 percent -- which is actually a slightly larger percentage than Sanders had indicated, but certainly in the ballpark.To make sure we werent missing something, we contacted a few experts on financial services issues. They offered a few caveats:The comparison is a bit of apples vs. oranges.The banks asset figures are an aggregation measured at a single point in time, whereas the GDP figure is an aggregation of goods and services measured over time. This distinction is the equivalent to a comparison of your net worth with your personal income, said Lawrence White, an economist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. Economists generally don't find these sorts of comparisons very useful or interesting. So the best that can be said is that these comparisons provide a rough sense of comparative magnitudes.The data are constantly moving.Several of these banks, especially Bank of America, have lost significant value since the figures were published in June 2011, said Satya Thallam, director of the Financial Markets Working Group at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The denominator, GDP, is always changing, as well. So, any estimate is true for a specific point in time, but possibly out of date not long after its made.Banks overseas holdings significantly complicate the comparison.For starters, the comparison Sanders is making doesnt mean that these banks own 60 percent of the U.S. wealth, because some of these banks assets are in overseas holdings. However, Sanders appears to be on safe ground with his phrasing, since all he said was that the two dollar figures were equivalent.Potentially more problematic for Sanders is that the assets-to-GDP ratio for the top six bank companies in the U.S. are actually quite modest when compared to the biggest banks in other nations.A2010 study by J.P. Morganlisted the 25 biggest banks internationally in 2008, along with the percentages of their home countrys GDP. The highest was UBS, with 376 percent of Switzerlands GDP. And six other banks all had assets as large as their home countrys GDP -- Credit Suisse Group of Switzerland (218 percent), Dexia of Belgium (180 percent), Fortis of the Netherlands (155 percent), Royal Bank of Scotland of the United Kingdom (131 percent), Barclays of the United Kingdom (112 percent) and BNP Paribas of France (101 percent).All of these dwarf the combined holdings of the top six banks in the U.S., in part because Americas GDP is so much larger than the GDP of these other nations.The significance of this fact for Sanders assertion, however, is less clear.This doesn't tell us what is a proper or appropriate number, Thallam said. One might reply that other countries are much more concentrated, but that only means they're worse -- not that we're in a good position. Some scholars, he added, have said that even at current concentration levels, U.S. banks should be broken up because they create a too big to fail problem. On the other hand, people for years said that banking exhibited economies of scale, so consolidation was natural, Thallam said.Our rulingSanders math is correct -- in fact, the percentage he offers is actually a little low. And hes careful to say only that the banks assets are only equivalent to 60 percent of the United States GDP, not that the banks own 60 percent of the United States. Sanders doesnt note that big banks in other countries are far bigger, compared to their nations GDP, than the U.S. banks are. Still, on balance, we rate his statement True. A photograph purportedly showing a group of female veterans who had all lost one or both legs to combat wounds began circulating online in July 2015:  The origins of this meme with its textual overlay describing the women pictured as "wounded female veterans" are unclear, but it has appeared on several web sites and has been widely shared on Facebook. web sites shared The women pictured above, however, are not American veterans who suffered losses of limbs to combat injuries. According to a February 2015 article from Globo.com, the photograph shows a group of Brazilian women who gathered together for a calendar photo shoot in order to raise money for amputees who cannot afford prosthetic limbs: Globo.com  The idea for the project came from Nelson Nol, an entrepreneur who heads Sorocaba's prosthetic branch. He said that the calendar will be sold nationally, and the collected monies will cover not only cover the costs of the campaign, but will create a fund to help families who can not afford prosthetics. "[The purpose] is to promote beauty, to show that you have life after amputation, and that these patients can lead full lives that include attending clubs, hanging out with friends, and dating," stresses Nol. The goal is to show that amputation is only a detail, and that beauty is a matter of attitude. The pictures are all in black and white, but the prostheses will be featured in vivid color images. The initiative is a way to show that physical limitations can not take away a woman's most valuable asset: pride. Banker Jaqueline Felizberto opened up in the photographs. She lost her right leg at seven years old when she was hit by a truck in front of her house. But the trauma has not hindered her life. "I have a normal life: super, super busy, well run. I really enjoy my makeup, go out and have fun. I love the beach. I like to enjoy a lot," says the banker turned model for a day. Camile Rodrigues was born with a malformed leg, but that did not stop her from becoming a top athlete. At the Pan-American Games in 2011, the swimmer took three silver medals and one bronze. For her, the concept of beauty has little to do with aesthetics. "Beauty to me is happiness. I think if you're happy, you're beautiful." On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch.  According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt  the basics  The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds.  National debt  the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy  despite having the same level of debt  will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.  While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative.  For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent  a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion.  Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible:  Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it.  Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple  the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time.  Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again.  That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017.  2011 2013 2015   Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms.  Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt  public debt and intragovernmental holdings  was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day  even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the  national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services.  "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt".
 TreasuryDirect.gov.  1 April 2016. On 11 August 2018, President Trump welcomed members of the "Bikers for Trump" group to the Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, New Jersey. Shortly afterwards a supposed tweet from President Trump featuring an image of one of the "Bikers for Trump" bearing an apparent Nazi 'SS' tattoo started making its way around online: welcomed online   The text shown above was taken from a tweet posted by President Trump, but that tweet did not include the photograph seen above. The President posted four photographs from the Bedminster event, none of which (as far as we can tell) prominently featured a biker with a Nazi tattoo on his arm. Here's a screenshot of President Trump's actual tweet: actual tweet   The biker photograph itself was snapped by Lauren Hudgins at the right-wing "Patriot Prayer" rally held in Portland, Oregon, a week before Trump's Bedminster event: Patriot Prayer This is one of the dudes I saw today at the #PatriotPrayer rally with just straight up Nazi tattoos. pic.twitter.com/hI5nMiizqr #PatriotPrayer pic.twitter.com/hI5nMiizqr  Lauren Hudgins (@lehudgins) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018  It's unknown exactly who first combined President Trump's tweet with the photograph of the "Bikers for Trump" member bearing the apparent Nazi tattoo, but that idea was suggested by Twitter user @ASchmalbert shortly after Trump posted his message about the bikers' visit to Bedminster (although that suggestion did not state that the resulting mash-up should necessarily be cast as something the President himself had tweeted in its entirety):   The pictured tattoo appears to be an SS Bolt, a white supremacist symbol derived from Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary organization in Nazi Germany. (Some social media users offered that the tattooed "SS" was just the latter part of a larger tattoo showing the KISS rock band's somewhat similar logo. This argument doesn't appear to be valid, however, as the SS symbol in the biker's photograph does not appear to be preceded by the letter "I.") symbol The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) noted that while SS Bolts are symbols commonly used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, it's difficult to determine a user's intent based solely on a picture: noted The SS bolts are typically used as a symbol of white supremacy, but there is one context in which this is not necessarily always so. Decades ago, some outlaw biker gangs appropriated several Nazi-related symbols, including the SS bolts, essentially as shock symbols or symbols of rebellion or non-conformity. Thus SS bolts in the context of the outlaw biker subculture does not necessarily denote actual adherence to white supremacy. However, because there are a number of racists and full-blown white supremacists within the outlaw biker subculture, sometimes it actually is used as a symbol of white supremacy. Often the intended use and meaning of the SS bolts in this context is quite ambiguous and difficult to determine. The photograph of the "Bikers for Trump" member with an 'SS' tattoo on his arm was taken in Portland, Oregon, during a "Patriot Prayer" rally. That photograph was not shared by President Trump, nor did any other information suggest the same person was in attendance at the 'Bikers for Trump' rally in Bedminster, New Jersey. Stanglin, Doug.  "Portland Protests: Police Use 'Flash Bangs' at Right-Wing Rally That Drew Counterprotesters."
  USA Today.  4 August 2018. My Central Jersey.  "Bikers for Trump Meet with President in Bedminster."
  12 August 2018. ADL.  "SS Bolts."
  Retrieved 13 August 2018. Tales about animals exhibiting human (or human-like) behavior have long been the subject of myths and legends, and one form of this narrative especially resonates with modern readers: the notion that an animal would  like most human mothers  knowingly and willingly sacrifice her own life to protect her children.  Many animals will of course engage in defensive posturing and even aggressively attack a much larger predator in order to defend their broods.  But we seem especially drawn to accounts (such as this one) that posit a mother animal's going beyond mere instinctive reaction and reasoning out (and then engaging upon) a course of action she knows will spell her end but will preserve the lives of her offspring. this one One example of this type of narrative is the following account, which holds that a mother deer (actually an impala) deliberately allowed herself to be caught by cheetahs in order to allow her two fawns a chance to escape a similar fate:  The image seen here is one of a series of pictures (titled "The Stranglehold") taken by photographer Alison Buttigieg in Kenya in 2013, documenting the capture of an impala by a group of cheetahs.  But as Alison explained in her backstory to the set of photographs, what she captured on camera was not a mother impala's sacrificing herself to protect her offspring.  In fact, the real story was nearly the inverse of that concept -- these photographs show a mother cheetah attempting to teach her cubs how to kill prey, then eventually dispatching a captured impala when her inexperienced cubs proved they weren't yet up to the task of strangling it themselves: explained I witnessed this Cheetah kill in September 2013 in the Maasai Mara, Kenya.  Narasha, the cheetah mom, was teaching her youngsters how to kill prey.  However they were a bit slow on the uptake and they were playing with the hapless Impala prey instead of killing it. Narasha, the cheetah mom is the one that is grabbing the impala by the neck in all the photos.   The youngsters practice some skills like pouncing and tripping which they get right, but they cannot seem to be able to get how to strangle the impala effectively. What is out of the ordinary in this sequence of photos is how calm the impala is throughout its ordeal.  It is probably in shock and thus paralysed with fear.  It is disturbing how it seems to be posing in some photos, especially in the 6th one as if determined to stay beautiful and proud until its very end.  The defiance in its eyes are in stark contrast with its lack of interest in self-preservation.  This allowed me to get unique pictures of a kill that are seemingly choreographed in their grace.  I wanted the viewer to sympathize with the impala, and at the same time witness with me the disturbing nature of this unusual kill. In the end, after what seemed like an interminable eternity (but it was just a few minutes), the cheetah mom put the impala out of its misery, and the cats got to enjoy a nice meal. As Alison noted, it's unusual "how calm the impala is throughout its ordeal," as well as how the doomed animal exhibited a seeming "lack of interest in self-preservation," but those behaviors had nothing to do with an effort on the part of the impala to allow her fawns a chance to escape a similar fate. Other versions of this tale maintain that Ms. Buttigieg "fell into depression" after snapping the photograph, a claim she refuted in a statement to DNA (India), as well as in her own Facebook post: statement "It is not true that I suffered from depression  it was just lies so that some people get more likes on their page. People steal photos all the time to get attention, but this was very rude and hurtful."  In fact when asked about if she knew her image for which she won accolades and even awards had become viral she replied, "Yes I know.  Hundreds of people are sending me messages about my fake depression and why I didn't save the deer.  Its been horrible. I have no idea who started this,  I wish I knew," said Buttigieg who is Maltese wildlife photographer residing in Finland. AsiaOne.  "Story of Antelope Sacrificing Its Life Is Untrue, Says Photographer."
  15 February 2017. Buttigieg, Alison.  "Cheetah Kill."
  Alison Buttigieg Wildlife Photography.  9 November 2013. Singh, Virat A.  "The Real Story Behind the Viral Photo of Cheetahs Preying on an Impala."
  DNA.   13 February 2017. In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI.