Endorsement Enforcement
[featured-image] Claim:USAF General Chuck Yeager wrote an essay endorsing Donald Trump for President.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, December2015] I've been repeatedly seeing a post that Chuck Yeager is endorsing Donald Trump for President.But on Yeager's website there is no mention of it and he seems to shy away from politics, in general. Origins: On 5 November 2015, the web site GaryForbes.wix.com published an article purportedly written by retiredUnited States Air Force General Chuck Yeager, endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States: article The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he's had and all the business deals he's made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, hes actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didnt brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trumps plan is for America. Its funny how so many people say they dont know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans: This article, titled "Donald Trump  Who He REALLY Is by Chuck Yeager," was not written bythe retired USAF General, nor was it first published on theGary Forbes web site. The article has been posted on a variety of blogs and web sites, with the earliest iteration being published to Doug Johnson's Horse Sense blog on 4 July 2015. variety blogs published Johnson's article wasn't particularly popular, but the majority of its content soon started circulating via e-mail and online forums, where it was cmommonly attributed to an "unknown author."Chuck Yeager's name was eventually tacked on to the essay, first by Catholic.org in August, and later by Gary Forbes, but this form of credit was undertaken without the USAF General's knowledge or approval. attributed August In fact, General Yeager has asked some Twitter users to delete links tothe purported endorsement,maintaining that he does not endorse political candidates (although he has apparently done so before): delete apparently      Last updated: 7 December 2015 Originally published: 7 December 2015
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early July 2020, social media users shared a purported screen shot of a tweet that was made to look like it had been written by U.S. President Donald Trump. The tweet called on South Dakota to "keep there [sic] border with California closed!"   Trump did travel to South Dakota to give a speech at Mount Rushmore on July 3, but he did not post the above tweet, which incorrectly states that the states of South Dakota and California share a border. The purported tweet doesn't appear on Trump's Twitter timeline on July 4, 2020, nor does it appear in a database that collects Trump's tweets or an archive that stores his deleted tweets. database archive Because we found no evidence that Trump posted the above tweet, we rate this claim In early 2022, folk-rock legend Neil Young found himself the target of a laughable conspiracy theory after he spoke out against COVID-19-related misinformation. On Jan. 24, Young wrote that he wanted his music removed from the streaming platform Spotify, unless the company ended its agreement to host Joe Rogan's podcast, which has on several occasions provided a forum for potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. In response, Spotify removed Young's back catalog from its library, rather than cutting ties with Rogan.  wrote misinformation removed In the midst of that controversy, vaccine skeptics and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists shared a ludicrous conspiracy theory claiming that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer  which produces a widely-used COVID-19 vaccine  either owned the rights to Young's music catalog or, through a chain of connections, held sway over the rock star and influenced, or even ordered, his pro-vaccination stance.  For example, some social media users posted a meme with the text, "When you realize Neil Young's music catalogue is owned by Pfizer": posted meme   Others did not explicitly claim that Pfizer itself owned some or all of Young's catalog, but did suggest that the company held sway over him, by way of a series of connections, and that therefore Young's opposition to Rogan and his criticism of vaccine misinformation should be dismissed as the result of corruption and self-compromise, rather than a principled stance.  did suggest series connections On social media, a conspiracy theorist who uses the moniker An0maly outlined the theory in helpful detail, starting with the observation that in January 2021, Young reportedly sold half of his catalog to a U.K.-based investment fund called Hipgnosis, for around $150 million. An0maly continued: outlined the theory So, 50% to UK investment fund Hipgnosis. In October of 2021, Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launched [a] "$1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties." Interesting. Blackstone is "an American alternative investment management company" who, interestingly enough, in 2020 announced the appointment of "Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as [a] senior adviser." Now I don't know the answer to this, but did Neil Young independently make the decision to try and blackball Joe Rogan for questioning big pharma and the government narrative? Or was it a team decision with a multi-billion-dollar investment firm who also owns a big chunk of his music? The first point to note here is that, even among those promulgating the Young-Pfizer theory, it is not seriously suggested that Pfizer itself  which is, after all, a pharmaceutical company  owns the rights to any of Young's music. That claim can be dismissed.  Before assessing the logic behind the theory, and its coherence, it's worth briefly evaluating the accuracy of each of its components. First, it appears to be true that, in January 2021, Young sold half of his songs to Hipgnosis. In a news release, Hipgnosis wrote: "...The Company has acquired 50% of Neil Youngs worldwide copyright and income interests in his entire song catalogue comprising 1,180 songs." news release Secondly, it is also true that in October 2021, Blackstone bought an ownership stake in Hipgnosis, as demonstrated in news releases published by both companies. Finally, it is also true that in August 2020, Blackstone hired Jeff Kindler as a senior advisor, and that Kindler used to be the chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  both companies hired Jeff Kindler used to be However, rather than having uncovered a web of corruption, those pushing the Young-Pfizer story were engaging in the classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy of finding whatever possible connection they can between two separate entities (in this case, Young and Pfizer) without first testing the logical or chronological basis of that putative link. In other words, "connecting the dots" by whatever means available, rather than uncovering an actual, organic conspiracy.  Let's look at the sequence of events. Kindler left Pfizer in 2010  a full decade before he joined Blackstone, and before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pfizer to develop a vaccine along with its German partner BioNTech. left Pfizer in 2010 Blackstone is a publicly traded company, meaning it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and Kindler, in turn, has a professional obligation to provide sound business and strategic advice to Blackstone. Aside from presenting no concrete evidence whatsoever, those pushing the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory appear to be asking readers to believe, despite these circumstances, one of two explanations: publicly traded company As outlandish as these scenarios are, they are premised on even shakier assumptions: for example, that Kindler was even consulted on the Blackstone-Hipgnosis deal; or that if he was, he was in favor of it; and that Young has any remaining financial or commercial obligations to Hipgnosis and/or Blackstone after the sale of half his music  after all, if that deal is already done, what is the supposed basis of Hipgnosis or Blackstone's putative leverage over Young? It's not necessary to list, in excruciating detail, each of the known factual and logical flaws associated with the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory. The claim that the pharmaceutical company "owned Young's music catalog" was patently false, and the theory of a fantastical web of corruption, with Kindler at its centre, was presented without any concrete evidence and, perhaps more importantly, made no sense whatsoever. A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente!   This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: described When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals -- and the charitable religious groups that funded them -- afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of providing high-quality, affordable health care for all. In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care, as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: HMO In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the "member," whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or "own") selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: described Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: initially With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the conservative appropriation of liberal reform: described Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixons support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixons who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixons aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaisers plan to be recognized: advocated not allow While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his health maintenance organization vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwoods ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the memes claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the first taste of federal subsidies incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make: conversation Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ... President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: ... the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] ... and the incentives run the right way. President Nixon: Not bad. Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixons later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: crude and inarticulate Despite Ehrlichmans miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called health maintenance an important part of a new national health strategy. He continued: If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents, Nixon said, fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true health systemand not a sickness system alone. ... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy. All told, little factual basis supports the memes assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. Rosenthal, Elisabeth.  "Insurance Policy: How an Industry Shifted from Protecting Patients to Seeking Profit."
  Stanford Medicine.  Spring 2017. Sekhri, Neelam K.  "Managed Care: The U.S. Experience."
  WHO Bulletin.  2000. Altman, Stuart and David Shactman.  Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: The Inside Story of a Century-Long Battle.
  Prometheus Books, 2011.  ISBN 1616144564. Markovich, Martin.  "The Rise of HMOs."
  RAND Graduate School Dissertation.  7 August 2003. Starr, Paul.  The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
  Basic Books, 2017  (2nd edition).  ISBN 0465093027. Kaiser Permanente.  "Kaiser Permanentes Prominent Role in American Health Care Reform."
  22 June 2007. Wikisource.  "Transcript of Taped Conversation Between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) That Led to the HMO Act of 1973."
  17 February 1971. 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 Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform  WinRed  changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. reported changed March 2020 shift September 2020 The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." late October Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.  Speaking From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim  the money On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: "2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!"   Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: taken Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we'll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they're doing is amazing. And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.   Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: NBC News Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we're bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they've never done work like this before. And they're hard-working people but they've never seen anything like it. And they've never done work like this before, it's terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they're reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they've never seen bodies like this -- bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing, and that's what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that's not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks.  President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could." described it a little differently Trump's statements were vague, so they didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he "paid for" their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. "This is the first Im hearing of it," Alles told us by phone. "There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered." Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) non-profit forced off According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: New York Times [Timothy] OBrien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was a little bit over a dozen people, which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Hes very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes, Mr. OBrien said. Even in the face of tragedy, he cant help but self-promote and self-aggrandize. We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don't know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ @realDonaldTrump #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ  Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 September 11, 2018 It's not the first time Trump's accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: some error pointed out I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down: falsely claimed Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. Keneally, Meghan and Liz Kreutz.  "Where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Were on 9/11."
  ABC News.  9 September 2016. Waldman, Paul.  "Trumps Long History of Lying About 9/11 and Exploiting It for Personal Gain."
  The Washington Post.  11 September 2018. Hind, John.  "21 Awful Truths About 9/11."
  The Telegraph.  5 September 2001. Neilan, Terrence.  "Hopes Are Raised, And Dashed, About Rescue of Firefighters."
  The New York Times.  13 September 2001. Balsalmo, Michael and Nancy Benac.  "Trump's Claims About 9/11 Don't Hold Up to Scrutiny."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2016. Rogers, Katie.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Claim He Spent a Lot of Time With 9/11 Responders."
  The New York Times.  29 July 2019. On Dec. 17, 2020, a message circulated on social media supposedly announcing an event hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Florida, on Jan. 20, 2021  the day of President-elect Joe Biden's swearing-in ceremony  and continuing Trump's misinformation campaign around election results. President-elect Joe Biden Trump's misinformation campaign The statement, which included a mass heading like that of official messages from the Trump campaign and was allegedly authored by Bill Stepien, Trump's campaign manager, alleged that Trump was not only preparing to bypass Biden's presidential inauguration in Washington D.C., but that he was planning to host an alternative inaugural event with supporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on the same day. bypass Biden's presidential inauguration   The viral message read: [Winner] of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, Donald J. Trump, and his Administration look forward to the January 20th Inauguration of their continuation of power and Second Term! [...] We look forward to celebrating this occasion with all Americans! Regardless of the intentions of so-called President Elect Joe Biden, President Donald Trump will not be conceding the 2020 election, nor does he plan on leaving the White house at point prior to January 20th. Any attempt to remove the Trump administration will require force. We will not back down from this fight. Americans deserve better. Despite the fact that Trump indeed had not conceded loss to Biden, the message announcing the Florida event was fake. conceded loss to Biden If the sitting president was indeed planning any kind of celebration at the resort, the campaign would have advertised it in messages to supporters, given its history of communicating similar announcements. But as of the original publication of this report, a Dec. 15 news release titled, "Trump campaign statement on Joe Biden visit to Georgia" was the most recent official message from the political operation, and nothing on the campaign's website announced an event on Inauguration Day. Trump campaign statement on Joe Biden visit to Georgia Additionally, no Trump campaign fundraising emails obtained by Snopes included the above-transcribed message, and no one within the president's inner circle  nor the president himself  had advertised the alleged celebration in public remarks or on social media. Trump campaign In fact, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on several occasions declined to discuss Trump's plans for Inauguration Day, eliminating any possibility that she at one point promoted a Jan. 20 event described in the social media posts. Kayleigh McEnany He knows what his decision is, and hell make his decision at the right time, she said at Dec. 2 press conference, a comment that neither confirmed nor denied rumors in news reports holding that Trump would skip Biden's inauguration for a Florida event. news reports Snopes reached out to the White House and Trump campaign directly, asking for its response to the rumor about Trump hosting a so-called inauguration event on the day that typically serves to signal a peaceful transfer of power between outgoing and incoming presidents. We have not heard back, and we will update this post when or if we do. peaceful transfer of power In sum, given there's no official record of the above-displayed message from the Trump campaign, as well as the fact that no White House source has confirmed the message or its contents as authentic, we rate this claim In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. In June 2021, a quote ostensibly uttered by famed naturalist David Attenborough about black and red antswas shared around social media.   Attenborough supposedly said: If you collect 100 black ants and 100 fire ants and put them in a glass jar nothing will happen. But if you take the jar, shake it violently and leave it on the table, the ants will start killing each other. Reds believe that black is the enemy, while black believes that red is the enemy, when the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. The same is true in society. Men vs WomenBlack vs WhiteFaith vs ScienceYoungs vs Oldetc... Before we fight each other, we must ask ourselves: Who rocked the jar? While this quote may ring true to some readers, two things need to be considered. First, this quote did not come from Attenborough. And two, we are unaware of any scientific experiment that showed how red and black ants would co-exist in a glass jar until the jar was shaken. Attenborough This viral quote appears to have been inspired by a passage from author Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." "I can't remember what all Frank had fighting in the jar that day, but I can remember other bug fights we staged later on: one stag beetle against a hundred red ants, one centipede against three spiders, red ants against black ants. They won't fight unless you keep shaking the jar. And that's what Frank was doing, shaking, shaking the jar." The earliest iteration that we could find of this viral message comes from an Oct. 3, 2020 Facebook post. That version did not credit Attenborough or provide any links directing to any sort of studies about red and black ants in a jar. Other posts from this time also credited an "unknown" or "anonymous" source. Attenborough's name wasn't attributed to this post until several months later. We have not been able to find any credible sources attributing this quote to Attenborough. And while we have found plenty of videos of Attenborough talking about ants, we have not found anything specifically about red ants and black ants co-existing in a jar until someone shakes it.It is relatively common on social media to see a famous person's name erroneously attached to a quote from a lesser-known or anonymous author. This appears to lend credibility to the writing, which in turn leads to an increase in shares. Republicans primary objection to the COVID-19 and economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress is that it spends relatively little on the disease itself. In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the $1.9 trillion package known as theAmerican Rescue Planwas loaded with pet projects that had nothing to do with the pandemic or economic recovery. All kinds of liberal wish list items that would do nothing to help American families put COVID behind them, McConnell saidFeb. 24. Just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. McConnells focus on 1% for vaccines caught our attention. His staff said he drew on the words of the Democrats themselves when they unveiled a key section of the sweeping bill. The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., highlighted a handful of items in the packagein a news release, including $14 billion for vaccines, $46 billion for testing, contact tracing, and mitigation, and $25 billion to reduce health disparities across the country. The nonpartisanCongressional Budget Officeand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetuse the $14 billion figure. However, there are different ways to add up the numbers. The same Democratic-controlled committee that provided the $14 billion figure came out a few days later with a factsheet thatuses an amountof $20 billion. And they note theres an additional $5 billion for advanced vaccine development. The different totals depend on what counts as vaccine spending. The lower figure in the first Democratic press release included only work at the CDC, the FDA, and ensuring a reliable supply chain to produce and administer the vaccine. The higher Democratic tally included other activities, such as sequencing the genome of virus variants and paying for health care workers to administer the vaccine. How much does this matter? In percentage terms, not that much. Even a total of $25 billion still amounts to just over 1% of the bills estimated price tag. Thats because the overall package includes big ticket items such as$422 billionin stimulus checks to individuals, $350 billion for state and local governments, and$242 billionfor expanded unemployment benefits. But in terms of dollars, theres a big difference between $14 billion and $20 billion or $25 billion. The point is, its possible to use percentages to make an amount appear small, and actual dollars to make the same amount look substantial. The most heated debate in Congress centers on how the American Rescue Plan deals with the economic damage of the pandemic. McConnells claim has more to do with the money aimed most directly at the virus and pandemic itself. In that vein, focussing strictly on vaccines leaves out a lot of the picture. The biggest overlooked piece is $46 billion for testing and other surveillance work. That work is as important as any other, said Amesh Adalja at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Better surveillance helps target vaccine distribution to certain states or communities, and is part of spotting virus mutations to improve the next generation of vaccines. There is a continuum and integration between all response activities, Adajla said. Those include testing, tracing, isolating and vaccinating. Vaccines have to make their way into peoples arms, and the legislation funds several programs to support that work, including $7.6 billion to hire 100,000 community health workers. We found different ways to add up all the spending tied directly to COVID-19. On the low end, the total is about$100 billion. On the high end, theWhite Housesays it is $160 billion, which adds items such as$10 billionin medical supplies, $24 billion in child care for health care and other essential workers, and literally dozens of smaller amounts. Depending on which line items you include, the legislation would spend anywhere from 4.5% to 8.5% of the total cost directly on the pandemics health aspects. McConnell said that in the American Rescue Plan, just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. Based on Democratic figures of either $14 billion or $20 billion for vaccines, and a $1.9 trillion overall price tag, the math is about right. The American Rescue Plan spends much more on the financial damage caused by the virus than on its health aspects alone, and McConnell picked a way to minimize the health-related spending. The statistic omits a much greater amount of spending on overall efforts to contain the pandemic. That ranges from about $100 billion to $160 billion, or between 5% and 8% of the bills total cost. His statement is accurate, but needs additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.