Was a Chinese Company Set to Buy General Electric in 2021?
In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read: read General Electric is being sold to a Chinese company for 5.4 billion dollars. Americans are you concerned yet???     The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China. conspiracy theories Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory. owned calamity colluding In reality, we found no record of any announcement, or reliable news report, of a deal to sell General Electric (GE) to any Chinese company in 2021. Rather, the figure of "5.4 billion dollars" refers to the sale of GE's appliances division to the China-based company Haier. That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016  before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later. announced completed That sequence of events fatally undermines the broader suggestion that Biden's presidency will "open the floodgates" for aggressive Chinese involvement in the American economy, as part of an underlying, sinister relationship between Biden and the Communist Chinese regime.  Furthermore, the Chinese company in question bought one of GE's divisions, not the entire entity  an additional, highly significant inaccuracy in the widely shared meme.
A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Imagine America as a sweaty, scruffy, cigarette-smoking dude -- with a drug problem.That vision comes to life in anew political ad: America could learn a lot from a drug addict, says Addicted Dude. Even though this countrys $14  trillion in debt, Washington raised the debt ceiling 10 times in the last 10 years. Each time  its like another hit  another spending hit. But youre the junkies.41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. So China is like your dealer, and your addiction and your dealer control your life. To borrow less, you need to spend less. Yeah  Washington could learn a lot from a drug addict.The ad was paid for by the Public Notice Research & Education Fund, a sister organization to Public Notice. In apress release, Public Notice said it was airing the ads in hopes that the super committee in Congress working on a new budget would adopt more spending cuts.Public Notice says its mission is to increase the publics awareness and understanding of the economic issues that affect their daily lives, communities, and children and grandchildren. That sounded rather generic to us, and we wanted to know more about Public Notice. However, as a 501(c)(4), Public Notice isnot requiredto disclose its donors. Public Notices executive director, Gretchen Hamel, is a former spokesman for the  House Republican Conference.We decided to fact-check the ads claim that 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China.To check this item, we turned to two government agencies that monitor the economy.We consulted the most recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to see if 41 cents of every dollar is borrowed.The numbers show that for fiscal year 2011 (which ended Sept. 30, 2011), the federal government took in $2.3 trillion and spent $3.6 trillion. So the shortfall between receipts and outlays was about $1.3 trillion. That means about 36 cents of every dollar spent was borrowed.Thats pretty close to the 41 percent the ad cited. When we contacted Public Notice, they told us they took their numbers from an earlier report published in June 2011 that included numbers for fiscal year 2010. The numbers we used were for fiscal year 2011 and published Nov. 7, 2011.Next, for the sake of thoroughness, we checked how much U.S. debt is held by China. China is the number one foreign country holding U.S. debt, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.China holds $1.15 trillion in U.S. debt, followed by Japan with $957 billion; the United Kingdom with $422 billion; and a group of oil-exporting countries that collectively hold $230 billion. (See the entire list. )So is Addicted Dude a good analogy for our budget situation? If China is our drug dealer, Chinas offering us the good stuff at an extremely low mark-up -- interest rates on U.S. Treasuries are near rock-bottom right now. On the other hand ...thats how they get you hooked.So well leave it up to you to decide whether the metaphor is apt.The ad from Public Notice says, 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. China is indeed the country that holds the most U.S. debt. But the most recent numbers on U.S. debt put the borrowed amount slightly lower, at 36 cents on the dollar. So we rate this statement Mostly True. Claim:  The accused Boston Marathon bombers attended expensive private schools.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April  2013] Can you tell me where the Boston bombers and their families got their monies?  There is no indication of a job (other than the father at one time being a US gov't employee) and I'm wondering how they got to an exclusive school and higher private education tuitions? Origins:  A number of inquiries from our readers like the one reproduced above suggests there is a common perception that accused Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended expensive private schools, a perception which has prompted many to raise the question of where the money to fund their educations came from (since the brothers apparently had no obvious substantial source of income).  Although detailed information about the Tsarnaevs' finances (and its sources) has not yet been made public, we can dispel the mistaken notion that they received costly private educations. According to various news accounts, the elder brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan (now deceased), attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and tookaccounting classes for three semesters between 2006 and 2008 as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College.  As the school's name indicates, Bunker Hill is a community college (i.e., a  Bunker Hill publicly funded two-year institution) with relatively low tuition rates for local residents. The younger brother, 19-year-old Dzhokhar, is likewise reported to have attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and then studied marine biology at UMass Dartmouth.  Although the names of these institutions might suggest otherwise, neither of them is a private school: Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) is a public high school (part of the Cambridge Public School District) formed from the 1977 merger of Rindge Technical School and Cambridge High and Latin School, and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (or UMass Dartmouth) is one of the five schools that comprise the University of Massachusetts public university system.  Altogether, public high school, community college, and the University of Massachusetts is about the cheapest educational path a resident of Massachusetts could follow. CRLS University of Massachusetts This isn't to say that the Tsarnaevs' educations were either cheap or completely cost-free: the fees at UMass Dartmouth run over $10,000 per year for Massachusetts residents, and even Bunker Hill Community College's tuition costs a local resident $141 per unit.   And at least one of the brothers (Tamerlan) is reported to have been receiving welfare benefits at one pointHowever, Dzhokhar won a Cambridge City Scholarship in 2011, and either or both brothers might also have received student loans or other forms of financial aid.   fees tuition welfare Last updated:  24 April 2013    CNN.com.  "Timeline: A Look at Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Past."   22 April 2013. Some April Fools' Day jokes outlive their marginal and ephemeral usefulness and continue to be spread as valid bits of information long after April 1 has come and passed. One example of such occurred in 2020, when a jape about a toll-free phone number that could be used for tracking the status of $1,200 economic stimulus payments being sent to U.S. taxpayers continued to circulate via social media: economic stimulus     The federal government has not yet announced an automated system for tracking stimulus payments. Persons who call the number shown above may end up "stimulated," but not in an economic sense -- it connects callers with a phone sex line. The IRS reportedly will start issuing stimulus payments via direct deposit beginning on April 9. Taxpayers who receive paper checks (because the IRS does not have their bank account information on file) may be receiving their payments anywhere between April 24 and September 11, depending upon their adjusted gross income. start issuing Mengle, Rocky.  "When Will I Get My Stimulus Check?."
  Kiplinger  3 April 2020. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. As the number of confirmed cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease surpassed 2 million in early June 2020, the campaign to reelect U.S. President Donald Trump ended its monthslong pause on large, in-person events and announced it would host a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the coming weeks. COVID-19 coronavirus disease Despite public health officials' recommendations at the time to avoid group gatherings and crowds to limit the spread of COVID-19, the Trump campaign announced on June 10 that it would host a rally at the Bank of Oklahoma Center, which seats almost 19,200 people, on June 19. Trump told reporters at the White House: public health officials told reporters Were going to start our rallies back up now. Weve had a tremendous run at rallies. ...The first one, we believe, will be probably  were just starting to call up  will be in Oklahoma  in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A beautiful, new venue  brand-new. And were looking forward to it. Theyve done a great job with COVID, as you know, in the state of Oklahoma. Beyond the event's potential threat to attendees' health, critics including high-profile Democrats and historians saw the announcement as a call to white supremacists during a national reckoning over racism following the death of George Floyd for two reasons: Tulsa is home to one of the worst acts of racial violence in American history  the 1921 Tulsa race massacre  and the event's originally scheduled date of June 19, or Juneteenth, is a day in many communities that traditionally celebrates the end of U.S. slavery in 1865. So two days after the initial announcement from the Trump campaign, the president yielded to that backlash and said he would delay the event and instead hold it on June 20. He tweeted: Democrats George Floyd Tulsa race massacre Juneteenth He tweeted   But as critics pointed out, the massive gathering still held the potential to expose large numbers of people to COVID-19. As if to confirm the danger, reports appeared saying the Trump campaign was asking attendees to agree in advance not to hold the campaign liable for coronavirus exposure:   To investigate the claim that attendees were asked to agree to a liability waiver, we went through the steps of reserving a spot at the Tulsa rally in the days before the event. To receive a digital ticket for the event, attendees had to complete the following form:   At the bottom of the registration page, the following text appeared: registration page By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury. In other words, to reserve an entry ticket for the Tulsa rally, people had to agree that they would "assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19" and agree not to sue Trump or any organizers of the event if they got sick. That agreement essentially clears the campaign of any responsibility should attendees catch the virus. At first, campaign leaders declined to elaborate on their plans to protect attendees' health once they were at the event. Then, on June 14, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters that attendees should wear masks. And campaign manager Brad Parscale said the following day that event organizers will hand out hand sanitizer and face masks (though they're not necessarily required) and check attendees' temperatures for fevers. He tweeted: Larry Kudlow should wear masks. said tweeted   Still unclear is if, or to what extent, the event will promote social distancing. It's possible people will stand or sit less than six feet apart from each other, despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to avoid that close of contact with people to prevent the virus' spread. Additionally, as of June 16, the CDC urged everyone to wear cloth face coverings when they leave their homes, stating on its website: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Considering the ongoing health risks due to COVID-19 and an upward trend in cases statewide, Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart said he would rather the president hold the event at a later date. He told Tulsa World: an upward trend in cases statewide Tulsa World I think its an honor for Tulsa to have a sitting president want to come and visit our community, but not during a pandemic. ...Im concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event, and Im also concerned about our ability to ensure the president stays safe as well. As of June 15, Oklahoma had tallied 359 deaths and 3,417 non-fatal cases due to the virus. The Trump campaign had last held a big rally on March 2 in Charlotte, North Carolina, before much of the country shut down to curb the pandemic. In sum, given the substantiating evidence that, in order to receive a ticket for the Tulsa event, people must click a box agreeing they would not hold the Trump campaign or event organizers liable should they catch COVID-19 at the June 20, 2020, rally, we rate this claim "True". Fox, Joe, et. al.  "At Least 112,000 People Have Died from Coronavirus in the U.S."
  The Washington Post. Accessed 12 June 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "How to Protect Yourself & Others."
 Accessed 12 June 2020. Sprunt, Barbara.  "Upcoming Trump Rally In Tulsa Faces Backlash Over Race, Coronavirus."
  National Public Radio.  11 June 2020. Bierman, Noah. "Trump Says He Will Resume Campaign Rallies June 19 in Tulsa."
  Los Angeles Times.  10 June 2020. White House.  Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable Discussion.
  10 June 2020. Oklahoma State Department of Health.  "Current Situation."
  Accessed 12 June 2020. Chiacu, Doina.  "Trump Economic Adviser Urges Wearing of Masks at Tulsa Rally."
  Reuters.  14 June 2020. The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on  ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True. 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. In April 2015, a rumor started circulating online holding that CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin had said, "Don't hire veterans. They can't be trusted with authority":  In later versions, this rumor was presented as Baldwin's having said, "Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority":  Baldwin, however, never said this. The quote "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority" is a very loose paraphrase of a passage from her 28 April 2015 interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland about the importance of police training:  "We talk about training, we talk about having officers. I was talking to the city councilman last week who was saying, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There's a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of these young people  and I've been talking about them so much. A lot of young people  and I love our nation's veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle." Baldwin's actual comment about how some veterans might not make good police officers because "some of them are coming back from war [and] they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle" was rather far from the claim that she had stated "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority." Still, many viewers (and many who didn't even see the interview) found Baldwin's words to be offensive. Shortly after the interview aired, Baldwin issued an apology via Twitter: apology  Baldwin also clarified her comments and issued an on-air apology the following morning: apology  "I absolutely misspoke. I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I've thought tremendously about this, and to our nation's veterans  to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry." On Oct. 25, 2023, a gunman opened fire at two separate locations in Lewiston, Maine, killing at least 18 people and wounding scores more. As reported by NBC News, "Seven people were found dead at the Just-In-Time Recreation bowling alley, eight were found dead at Schemengees Bar and Grille and three were pronounced dead at area hospitals." reported Just hours later, based on surveillance camera footage showing the perpetrator's face, law enforcement named Robert Card of Bowdoin, Maine, as a "person of interest:" named  As reported by NBC News, a bulletin put out by the Maine Information and Analysis Center, a database for law enforcement officials, indicated that Card was in the Army Reserve and was a trained firearms instructor. reported Around this time, video appearing to show a man being arrested on a dark street went viral with the claim that it purportedly showed Card being arrested: video  Such a claim was impossible. At the time of those posts and as of this reporting Card remained at large, and a massive manhunt was underway to capture him, as reported by CNN on Oct. 26, 2023: reported by An extensive manhunt is underway for a suspect in a mass shooting at a bowling alley and at a restaurant in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday night that left 18 people dead and 13 others injured, Gov. Janet Mills said Thursday. An arrest warrant has been issued for Robert Card, 40, accusing him of murder, Maine State Police Col. William Ross said during a Thursday news conference. He should be considered armed and dangerous, officials said. [...] Major Northeast grocery chain Hannaford Supermarkets kept all its Maine stores closed early Thursday, the company said. And public schools in Lewiston and Portland  the states largest district, with about 6,500 students  are closed, officials have said. People in nearby Bowdoin, Maine, were advised early Thursday the shelter in place advisory and school closings would include their town, Maine State Police announced: Please stay inside your homes while more than 100 investigators, both local and federal work to locate Robert Card who is a person of interest in the Lewiston shootings. Because Card was still at large at the time a video of his purported arrest went viral, we have rated claim as  Live Updates: At Least 18 Killed in Shootings in Lewiston, Maine; Manhunt Underway for Suspect. NBC News, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-shooting-manhunt-gunman-police-live-rcna122270. Police Identify 40-Year-Old Man as Person of Interest in Mass Shooting in Lewiston, Maine. NBC News, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262. Smart, Sara, et al. Arrest Warrant Issued for Suspect after 18 Killed in Shooting Rampage in Maine as Manhunt Continues, Officials Say. CNN, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/us/lewiston-maine-shootings-thursday/index.html.