Could Women Not Do These 9 Things in 1971?
In August 2019, as many people took to the Internet to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote on paper, a piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly listed "9 things that women couldn't do until 1971":   The following list is of NINE things a woman couldn't do in 1971  yes the date is correct, 1971. In 1971 a woman could not: 1. Get a Credit Card in her own name  it wasn't until 1974 that a law forced credit card companies to issue cards to women without their husband's signature. 2. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for the offense of getting pregnant  that changed with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of *1978*! 3. Serve on a jury - It varied by state (Utah deemed women fit for jury duty way back in 1879), but the main reason women were kept out of jury pools was that they were considered the center of the home, which was their primary responsibility as caregivers. They were also thought to be too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses. In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida law that exempted women from serving on juries. It wasn't until 1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states. 4. Fight on the front lines  admitted into military academies in 1976 it wasn't until 2013 that the military ban on women in combat was lifted. Prior to 1973 women were only allowed in the military as nurses or support staff. 5. Get an Ivy League education - Yale and Princeton didn't accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn't admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). Brown (which merged with women's college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but, by and large, women in the '60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold. 6. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. Indeed the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977! 7. Decide not to have sex if their husband wanted to  spousal rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Read that again ... 1993. 8. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man. Sex discrimination wasn't outlawed in health insurance until 2010 and today many, including sitting elected officials at the Federal level, feel women don't mind paying a little more. Again, that date was 2010. 9. The birth control pill: Issues like reproductive freedom and a woman's right to decide when and whether to have children were only just beginning to be openly discussed in the 1960s. In 1957, the FDA approved of the birth control pill but only for "severe menstrual distress." In 1960, the pill was approved for use as a contraceptive. Even so, the pill was illegal in some states and could be prescribed only to married women for purposes of family planning, and not all pharmacies stocked it. Some of those opposed said oral contraceptives were "immoral, promoted prostitution and were tantamount to abortion." It wasn't until several years later that birth control was approved for use by all women, regardless of marital status. In short, birth control meant a woman could complete her education, enter the work force and plan her own life. Oh, and one more thing, prior to 1880 which is just a few years before the photo of this very proud lady was taken, the age of consent for sex was set at 10 or 12 in more states, with the exception of our neighbor Delaware  where it was 7 YEARS OLD! Feminism is NOT just for other women. KNOW your HERstory. A similar post on Facebook with tens of thousands of shares reported much the same in 2016 from user Lisa Bialac-Jehle. post on Facebook In general, the list above accurately reports nine things that women couldn't do in 1971. We'll take a closer look at each item below: Get a credit card in her own name As this post explains, banks were able to discriminate against women applying for credit cards until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in October 1974. Women could get credit cards prior to this legislation, but as The Smithsonian notes, they were likely to be asked a barrage of personal questions and were often required to be accompanied by a man to co-sign for a credit card. Even then, women often received cards with lower limits or higher rates: Equal Credit Opportunity Act Smithsonian Forty years ago, any woman applying for a credit card could be asked a barrage of questions: Was she married? Did she plan to have children? Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card, and some discounted the wages of women by as much as 50 percent when calculating their credit card limits. As women and minorities pushed for equal civil rights in various arenas, credit cards became the focus of a series of hearings in which women documented the discrimination they faced. And, finally, in 1974  forty years ago this year  the Senate passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender, race, religion and national origin. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for getting pregnant Women faced a number of work-related consequences for getting pregnant prior to the passage of thePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. On the 40th anniversary of this law, the ACLU posted a statement explaining how pregnancy often resulted in pink slips for working women: Pregnancy Discrimination Act statement Forty years ago, working women in the United States won the legal protection to become working mothers. On Oct. 31, 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, making it illegal for employers to deny a woman a job  or promotion, or higher pay, or any other opportunity  because she is pregnant. The statute had an immediate, dramatic impact on women's ability to fully participate in the workforce. Although on-the-job sex discrimination had been outlawed more than a decade earlier, pregnancy wasn't legally recognized as a type of sex discrimination. As a result, a pregnancy often resulted in a pink slip. Some employers even imposed formal policies prohibiting pregnancy outright because their female employees were expected to project a certain image  for example, flight attendants, who were expected by airlines to convey sexual availability to their businessman customers, and teachers, who were expected by school districts to project chasteness to their young pupils. Serve on a jury Women's road to the jury box was a long one. While the state of Utah deemed women qualified for jury duty back in 1898, it took the other 49 states several decades to reach the same conclusion. The ACLU noted that women were excluded from jury duties for a number of reasons: noted Aside from the "defect of sex," women were excluded from juries for a variety of reasons: their primary obligation was to their families and children; they should be shielded from hearing the details of criminal cases, particularly those involving sex offenses; they would be too sympathetic to persons accused of crimes; and keeping male and female jurors together during long trials could be injurious to women. While this viral posts states that it wasn't until "1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states," we found that this battle was still being fought for at least another two years. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it was constitutionally unacceptable for states to bar women from juries. From a 1975 article in The New York Times: The New York Times The Supreme Court ruled today that shifting economic and social patterns of the last dozen years have made it constitutionally unacceptable for states to deny women equal opportunity to serve on juries. The 8to1 decision will have little practical effect on the makeup of juries. All states, including Louisiana where the case originated, now have laws that do not exempt women from jury service, although women are treated differently from men in some instances involving such service. But the majority broke important philosophical ground by acknowledging for the first time that the role of women is society was changing and that the courts must recognize their growing economic independence in assessing their legal rights. "If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service," Associate Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority, "that time has long since passed." Fight on the front lines Women in the United States have been aiding military operations as nurses, cooks, and in other non-combat positions since the Revolutionary War in 1775. However, it wasn't until 1976 that the United States Military Academy at West Point accepted women to the Corps of Cadets. Still, it would be several more years until women would find their way to the front lines. In 1994, the Pentagon restricted women from serving in "artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles." This ban wasn't lifted until 2013: several more years restricted 2013 The US military officially lifted a ban on female soldiers serving in combat roles on Thursday and said that anyone qualified should get a chance to fight on the front lines of war regardless of their sex. At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America's battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. "Everyone is entitled to a chance," said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military's 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Get an Ivy League education The Ivy League is comprised of eight universities in the northeastern part of the United States. While women were able to attend Cornell University as early as the 1870s, it wasn't until 1983 that the final Ivy League school, Columbia College, started to admit women: 1983 The last all-male school in the Ivy League became a coeducational one yesterday when Columbia College enrolled women for the first time in its 229-year history. It was a day of celebration at Columbia, with few alumni or students criticizing the change, and with college administrators saying the decision to admit women had resulted in the most talented freshman class ever. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to Time, the term "sexual harassment" was coined by a group of students at Cornell University in 1975. The term was popularized in a New York Times article published that same year, and in 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could take legal action against her employer for sexual harassment: Time New York Times The phrase "sexual harassment" was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University. A former employee of the university, Carmita Wood, filed a claim for unemployment benefits after she resigned from her job due to unwanted touching from her supervisor. Cornell had refused Wood's request for a transfer, and denied her the benefits on the grounds that she quit for "personal reasons." Wood together with activists at the university's Human Affairs Office, formed a group called Working Women United. At a Speak Out event hosted by the group, secretaries, mailroom clerks, filmmakers, factory workers and waitresses shared their stories, revealing that the problem extended beyond the university setting. The women spoke of masturbatory displays, threats and pressure to trade sexual favors for promotions ... ... By 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using the EEOC as the vehicle for redress. The Supreme Court upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was based on the complaints of Mechelle Vinson, a bank employee whose boss intimidated her into having sex with him in vaults and basements up to fifty times. Vinson was African American, as were many of the litigants in pioneering sexual harassment cases; some historians suggest that the success of racial discrimination cases during these same years encouraged women of color to vigorously pursue their rights at work. Decide not to have sex if her husband wanted to This item is referring to spousal rape. The first person to be convicted of spousal rape in the U.S. was a Massachusetts bartender who broke into the home of his estranged wife in 1979 and raped her: convicted English common law, the source of much traditional law in the U.S., had long held that it wasn't legally possible for a man to rape his wife. It was in 1736 that Sir Matthew Hale  the same jurist who said that it was hard to prove a rape accusation from a woman whose personal life wasn't entirely "innocent," setting the standard that a woman's past sexual experiences could be used by the defense in a rape case explained that marriage constituted permanent consent that could not be retracted. That idea stood for centuries. Then, in 1979, a pair of cases highlighted changing legal attitudes about the concept. Until then, most state criminal codes had rape definitions that explicitly excluded spouses. (In fact, as TIME later pointed out, it wasn't just the case that saying "no" to one's husband didn't make the act that followed rape; in addition, saying "no" to one's husband was usually grounds for him to get a divorce.) As the year opened, a man in Salem, Ore., was found not guilty of raping his wife, though they both stated that they had fought before having sex. But, even as the verdict was returned, a National Organization for Women spokesperson told TIME that "the very fact that there has been such a case" meant that change was in the air  and she was quickly proved right. The case believed to be the first-ever American conviction for spousal rape came that fall, when a Salem, Mass., bartender drunkenly burst into the home he used to share with his estranged wife and raped her. It's not hard to see how this case was the one that made the possibility of rape between a married couple clear to the public: they were in the middle of a divorce, and the crime involved house invasion and violence. As TIME noted, several other states had also adopted laws making it possible to pursue such a case, though they had not yet been put to the test. Even though the first conviction for spousal rape occurred during the 1970s, it wasn't until 1993 that spousal rape was officially illegal in all 50 states. While marital rape has been technically illegal in all 50 states since 1993, advocates argue that there are still legal loopholes in some states that allow for marital rape to be treated differently than rape. legal loopholes Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as men This item refers to the practice of "gender rating" by health insurance companies, which typically resulted in higher premiums for women seeking individual health insurance. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to do away with the practice. Obamacare NPR reported: reported Any woman who has bought health insurance on her own probably didn't find herself humming the old show tune, "I Enjoy Being a Girl." That's because more than 90 percent of individual plans charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage, a practice known as gender rating. Women spend $1 billion more annually on their health insurance premiums than they would if they were men because of gender rating, according to a recent report by the National Women's Law Center. Under the health care overhaul, the practice is banned starting in 2014. The birth control pill This post correctly states that the FDA first approved an oral contraceptive (a birth-control pill called Enovid) in 1957. However, at the time, the pill was only approved for use as a "treatment of severe menstrual disorders," and the FDA required that it be labeled with a warning that Enovid will prevent ovulation. A few years later in 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as a contraceptive. Still, the pill was only available to married couples. It wasn't until 1972 that birth-control pills were available to all women, regardless of marital status: 1972 Then came the landmark date, marking the biggest change to America's contraceptive potential in history. On May 9, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid, an oral contraceptive pill released by G.D. Searle and Company. By 1965, almost 6.5 million American women were on "The Pill," the oral contraceptive's enduring vague nickname, which is thought to have stemmed from women requesting it from their doctors as discreetly as possible. That same year, the Supreme Court struck down state laws that prohibited contraception use, though only for married couples. (Unmarried people were out of luck until 1972, when birth control was deemed legal for all.) Ortiz, Erik.  "'It's Disgusting': Loopholes Remain in North Carolina's Sexual Assault Laws. Advocates Ask Why."   NBC News.  11 May 2019. Eveleth, Rose.  "Forty Years Ago, Women Had a Hard Time Getting Credit Cards."   Smithsonian.  8 January 2014. Thomas, Gillian.  "Employees Who Have Babies Are Still Getting the Axe."   ACLU.  31 October 2018. McDonald, Laughlin.  "A Jury of One's Peers."   ACLU.  18 March 2011. Harris, Paul.  "Women in Combat: US Military Officially Lifts Ban on Female Soldiers."   The Guardian.  25 January 2013. Rothman, Lily.  "When Spousal Rape First Became a Crime in the U.S."   Time.  28 July 2015. Weaver, Warren.  "High Court Backs Women's Jury Rights."   The New York Times.  22 January 1975. Bumiller, Elisabeth and Thom Shanker.  "Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women."   The New York Times.  23 January 2013. Belkin, Lisa.  "First Coed Class Enters Columbia College."   The New York Times.  30 August 1983. Cohen, Sascha.  "A Brief History of Sexual Harassment in America Before Anita Hill."   Time.  11 April 2016. Nemy, End.  "Women Begin to Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment at Work."   The New York Times.  19 August 1975. NPR.  "Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop."   17 July 2012. Gibson, Megan.  "The Long, Strange History of Birth Control."   Time.  2 February 2015.
On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0. Gov. John Kasich has said collective bargaining should be restricted for Ohios public workers  to help governments balance their budgets and, in turn, help the state bring its spending into balance in the face of a massive deficit.One of the reasons I did this is I wanted local governments to have the tools to be able to control their costs, Republican Kasich said in March right before he released his budget proposal that sharply cuts state funding to local governments.But opponents of controversial Senate Bill 5  a measure that Kasich enthusiastically signed March 31 that would sharply restrict bargaining, end binding arbitration and ban public employees from striking  say the governors argument comes up false when comparing Ohio to other states.There is no evidence to suggest that collective bargaining is the cause of overall budget challenges, former Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper told an Ohio House committee in March. Many states without collective bargaining, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina, have far larger budget deficits than many that do, including Ohio.Clearly, Pepper and the governor have very different ways of framing the debate over collective bargaining. The last part of his comment got PolitiFact Ohios attention, though, and we decided to take a look.Pepper, a Democrat who lost to Republican Dave Yost last November in the state auditor election, said his point was that most states are suffering budget difficulties regardless of whether they have collective bargaining options for public workers.There is clearly from looking across the country no correlation between states that have collective bargaining for public workers and having budget problems or being competitive, Pepper said in an interview. There simply is no case for getting rid of collective bargaining to solve budget problems.Pepper said his comments were based on information from Policy Matters Ohio, a left-leaning research organization. Its executive director, Amy Hanauer, testified in February to a Senate committee that Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada all faced more significant budget gaps than Ohio for fiscal 2010.In terms of percentages of their overall budgets, the gaps were higher in Arizona (65 percent), North Carolina (26 percent) and Nevada (47 percent) than in Ohio (14 percent) for fiscal 2010, according to data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also a left-leaning group. CBPPs data is widely used by government think tank groups, including by the Pew Center on the States.Data from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures showed the same was true in fiscal 2011 when those same three states had deficits that were a larger percentage of the overall budget than was the case in Ohio.In terms of dollars, Arizonas deficit of $5.1 billion and North Carolinas -- $5 billion -- were both higher than Ohios gap of $3.6 billion for 2010. But Nevadas -- $1.5 billion -- was lower.Republicans who control the General Assembly argue that many local governments have complained about public employee wages and benefits, sometimes gained through binding arbitration when negotiations have failed. But likening restrictions on collective bargaining to a budget solving pill appears to be a stretch.States with no collective bargaining for public employees had an average budget gap of 24.8 percent in 2010, according to Policy Matters Ohio. Meanwhile, states with collective bargaining for all public employees had an average deficit gap of 24.1 percent.Pepper was right on the money in terms of percentage gaps. He was correct in terms of actual dollars and cents for two of the three states he cited.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Peppers statement Mostly True. Claim:  Mitt Romney is facing federal ethics charges. :    Mitt Romney has been charged with ethics violations by the federal government.  The United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations have requested a federal investigation of Mitt Romney's financial disclosures. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] I saw this on Face Book and I am wondering if this is true? BREAKING: Romney facing federal ethics charges. YES. This is REAL.  On Monday, Mitt Romney is expected to face charges for ethics violations and profiteering with regard to his involvement with the 2009 government bailout of the auto industry. Origins:  On 1 November 2012, five days before the U.S. presidential election, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations sent a letter to Don W. Fox, the General Counsel and Principal Deputy Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, calling for an investigation of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's financial disclosures.  The senders maintain that Mitt Romney has "undisclosed stock holdings [that] create very serious conflicts ofinterest" and that he garnered a profit of "at least $15.3 million" from the automobile industry bailout of 2009. letter In a press release about the letter, the UAW stated: press release A coalition of community, labor and good government organizations is calling on the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to investigate presidential candidate Mitt Romney for noncompliance with the Ethics in Government Act and compel him to either disclose his investments or divest them. A letter sent to Don W. Fox, general counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, states that Gov. Romney "has not even attempted to meet the requirements for a federal blind trust with respect to his substantial equity holdings. The only way for this law to be enforced in a meaningful way is for your Office to act promptly to  demand that candidate Romney disclose his stock holdings, or divest them if disclosure is not feasible." The letter was sent by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, SEIU, UAW and The Social Equity Group, and it follows up on a previous letter sent to the Office of Government Ethics on Aug. 23, 2012, that urged the office to act. "The American people have a right to know about Governor Romney's potential conflicts of interest, such as the profits his family made from the auto rescue," said UAW President Bob King. "It's time for Governor Romney to disclose or divest." The groups believe that Romneys undisclosed stock holdings create serious conflicts of interest. They point to the auto loans as a key example. The Nation recently reported that the Romney family personally profited by at least $15.3 million from the auto loans of 2009. Yet Romney's June 1, 2012, Public Financial Disclosure Report to the Office of Government Ethics did not reveal this windfall because he did not disclose the underlying holdings of his private equity and limited partnership funds.     Romney profited from his family's investment in Delphi Corp. at the expense of the Delphi workers. Other unreported investments that could create conflicts of interest include controversial holdings in Sensata and Global-Tech. The statement that Mitt Romney is "facing federal ethics charges" is at this point an exaggeration, however, as no charges have been issued against him by the federal government for violating ethics laws.  All that has happened is that some groups have sent a letter to the Office of Government Ethics requesting an investigation of Romney's financial disclosures, based on information of as-yet undetermined accuracy.  Whether sufficient basis will be found to merit an investigation, whether any such investigation will be conducted, what that investigation might find, and whether it would result in any criminal charges being brought against Mitt Romney are all matters of mere speculation. Last updated:  5 November 2012 Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. On 25 February 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted to complain that the news media were not reporting his success in reducing the national debt during his first month in office: tweeted The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017 February 25, 2017  As noted by news media from the Los Angeles Times to the Washington Post, the tweet appeared closely after a "Fox & Friends" segment in which guest (and former presidential candidate) Herman Cain reported the same numbers. That story appeared to have its origins in a post on the conservative blog Gateway Pundit ("Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month") which took credit for the Trump tweet in an update to their story. Los Angeles Times Washington Post took credit There are two claims implicit in the tweet. The first claim is simply the factual nature of the figures reported. The second is that the numbers represent an item worthy of coverage. The numbers are factual in a literal sense, according to the online debt history search application offered by the US Treasury Department: application   Though the numbers regarding the debt at the end of Trumps and President Obamas first month are factual, their significance as a reportable bit of information or as an indicator of the impact or success of Trumps policies is questionable. Speaking to CBS News, Maya MacGuineas, director of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, said: said It is true the debt outstanding declined by $12 billion in the first month of Donald Trumps presidency. We applaud the president for focusing on the debt as an important metric of success and economic health, but would point out that the improvement this early in his term has to do with normal fluctuations in spending and revenues rather than new policies he has implemented. Indeed, in terms of newsworthiness (or lack thereof), sporadic reductions of the debt are not uncommon (in red, below) on a month-to-month basis, according to The "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" reports released during the course of President Obama's second term in office: reports     In fact, the Washington Posts Wonkblog reports that, even on a day-to-day basis, fluctuations even greater than the one Trump referenced are not unheard of: reports The Gateway Pundit article says that the change in debt under Trump translates to a 0.1 percent reduction in the U.S. debt burden. Actually, it's .06 percent between Jan. 20 and Feb. 21  a very small change. (The national debt has gone up or down by as much .19 percent on single days this year.) Secondly, there are few mechanisms by which any actions Trump has taken as president would affect the national debt thus far, as he has not signed into law any financial measures related to federal borrowing. While there are arguments to be made that other factors related to Trumps presidency could affect the debt, the Post has said it is unlikely, and also impossible to quantify: Its impossible to know whether Trumps election has really had time to filter through to concretely affect the economy. Congress has not passed any of his policies yet. The stock market has certainly continued to boom, but it was already rising before the election. While it's possible anticipation of tax cuts or regulatory relief is heating up the economy and leading to increased government receipts, investors might also be choosing not to sell assets to avoid current capital gains tax rates and waiting to see whether the Republican-dominated Congress successfully slashes rates. Keith Hennessey, a former director of the U.S. National Economic Council appointed by George W. Bush, wrote a hypothetical memo to Congress analyzing the 45th Presidents tweet. In this document, he stated that neither Obama nor Trump had any effect on the national debt in their first month in office: hypothetical memo document Government borrowing in January and February is the byproduct of spending and tax policies set by Congress the year before. President Obama signed the fiscal stimulus law on February 17, 2009, but it took months before that began to change government cash flows and borrowing requirements. President Trump has so far not measurably affected fiscal policy in general or government borrowing in specific. Its unfair to assign any responsibility for borrowing in the first month to either president. Hennessey added that it is equally unfair to compare the 2009 economic situation with the 2017 one: GDP was plummeting when President Obama took office. Tax revenues were down, automatic stabilizer payments (e.g., unemployment insurance and safety net spending) were up, and funds were being spent from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In early 2009 government was borrowing a lot because the economy was weak, not because of President Obamas policies. In contrast, the U.S. economy is now growing. The smaller borrowing requirement for this month is mostly a result of this economic difference, and may also in part be simply an artifact of choosing such a short timeframe for comparison. More to the point, however, the fact that the day-to-day and month-to-month fluctuations of the national debt are so volatile, he argued, is why analysts dont typically look at the data for these time periods, accordingo to Hennessey: Had the president / Mr. Cain ended his timeframe one day earlier this tweet would have been invalid and debt would have increased (by just $1 B) in the first month. This is why analysts look at debt on an annual basis rather than daily/weekly/monthly. It should also be noted that, as the Fox and Friends segment aired on one of the nations most popular national cable news networks, "the media" did indeed report on this story. The reason it didnt pick up much steam is that the numbers were not newsworthy because they were taken out of context and are likely irrelevant to President Trump's actions in office. UPDATE: 28 February 2017 -- Modified the status of this article to "" to better explicate the difference between the accuracy of the debt figures and their newsworthiness. Hennessey, Keith.  "Memorandum for a Member of Congress: The Presidents Debt Tweet."
  keithhennessey.com.  25 February 2017. Swanson, Ava.  "Trump Is Upset the Media Is Not Reporting a Meaningless Statistic About the National Debt."
  The Washington Post.  25 February 2017. Hoft, Jim.  "Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month  UPDATE: Trump Tweets Our Numbers"
  thegatewaypundit.com.  23 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It." Shabad, Rebecca.  "Fact-Checking Trump's Claim About Debt Dropping by $12b in Last Month."
  thegatewaypundit.com.  25 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) and Downloadable Files." Morin, Rebecca.  "Former Economic Council Director Derides Trump's Debt Tweet."
  Poltico.  25 February 2017. Wilber, Del Quentin.  "Trump Brags About the National Debt, But His Comparison Is Misleading."
  Los Angeles Times.  25 February 2027. Critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump often share photographs in which he poses with his daughter Ivanka, allegedly behaving inappropriately towards her.One such photograph, shared online for years, purportedly showed her when she was a teenager, posing on a bed with her father. The photograph is authentic. It was featured in a 1995 issue of InStyle magazine. Therefore, we have rated the claim  The photo surfacedon X (formerly Twitter) inearly 2024 and has existed on various other social media platforms, includingFacebook, Imgur, Pinterest, Quora, and Reddit. Facebook Imgur Pinterest Quora Reddit   (X user @MarioVe69225752) TinEye reverse-image search results showed it has circulated online at least since 2016."Does [Trump] have any clue how this looks to strangers?" one Reddit user commentedon the image. reverse-image search results at least since 2016 commented Snopes reached out to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign to ask about the in-question image. We will update this report when, or if, we receive a response. It's worth noting that, in many early postswith the image, it was seemingly a photo of a printed photograph. "From the Trump family photo album," one X post claimed without evidence. in many early posts claimed Donald Trump and daughter Ivanka photographed for a Pretty Baby-esque publicity shoot in the '90s pic.twitter.com/3jMLTZTjAg pic.twitter.com/3jMLTZTjAg  Anna Biller (@missannabiller) October 17, 2016 October 17, 2016  We did notice that the photograph's background seemingly matched that of otherphotographs from inside Donald Trump's penthouse in New York (see image below). photographs   (X user @missannabiller, France24.com) After the initial publication of this article rating the claim "Unproven," a reader shared with us what appeared to be digital scans of pages from a printed article featuring the in-question photograph. The reader confirmed via email that they owned a physical copy of the article and had scanned the image. shared with us   (Email from Snopes' reader) We uploaded the reader's images into TinEye's reverse-image search. Using those results and Wayback Machine, an internet archive, we found the images indeed matched media that appeared in an articlepublished byInStyle magazine in December 1995. We tracked down that magazine'scover, which teased the article, "at home with [...] Donald & Marla Trump." cover  Inside, the article with the in-question image was titled "Breakfast Above Tiffany's" and was written by Leslie Marshall, according to a 2015 post by InStyle. We were unable to locate a digital version of the entire magazine issue. 2015 post by InStyle   (Wayback Machine) Based on the images, Firooz Zahedi photographed the Trumps. We reached out to Zahedi  as well as Marshall, the article's author  for more information about the 1995 piece. Firooz Zahedi Zahedi confirmed via email that he took the in-question photograph for a 1995 issue of the In Style magazine. He said he has "not given the right to anyone else to publish it," so whoever put it online first "scanned it from the article." We will update this report when, or if, we receive a response from Marshall. Two books by Gwenda Blair about the Trump family ("The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders" and "Donald Trump: The Candidate") cited the 1995 article by InStyle. The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders Donald Trump: The Candidate   (Google Books) This was not the first rumor about Donald Trump and his children that Snopes has fact-checked. For instance, in January 2024, we confirmeda photo authentically depicted Donald Trump with two of his children, Ivanka and Eric, alongside Jeffrey Epstein in 1993. We alsoinvestigatedrumors that Donald Trump said he'd like to date Ivanka anddebunked a false claim that Ivanka once said she would "mace" him if he wasn't her father. confirmed investigated debunked Evon, Dan. "Did Donald Trump Say He'd Like to Date His Daughter?" Snopes, 10 July 2015, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-date-daughter/. ---. "Ivanka Trump Said If Donald Trump Wasn't Her Father, She Would 'Mace' Him?" Snopes, 25 Nov. 2016, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivanka-trump-said-if-donald-trump-wasnt-her-father-she-would-mace-him/. Mahdawi, Arwa. "Donald Trump Was Allegedly Creepy about Ivanka  but Will His Fans Care?" The Guardian, 1 July 2023. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/01/donald-trump-ivanka-miles-taylor-book-claims. PerryCook, Taija. "Were Trump and 2 of His Kids, Ivanka and Eric, Seen with Jeffrey Epstein in '93?" Snopes, 3 Jan. 2024, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ivanka-and-eric-with-epstein/.
 February 20, 2024: This article was updated to include a response from photographer Firooz Zahedi to Snopes' inquiry about the photo.  February 21, 2024: This article was updated to include additional information from the reader who sent Snopes digital scans of the printed article featuring the in-question photograph. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. On 8 November 2016, a screenshot purportedly showing a deleted Tweet from Donald Trump's son, Eric, featuring an image of his marked ballot was widely circulated via social media: eric trump deleted his violation of new york state law, so here it is for posterity pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc  noah kulwin (@nkulw) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016  The above-displayed screenshot is real. The tweet was posted by Eric Trump on 8 November 2016 but was deleted shortly afterwards: Although the tweet's URL currently leads to Twitter's "Sorry, that page doesn't exist" page, we managed to archive a cached version of the tweet: page archive cached  Taking a "ballot selfie" or posting a photograph showing the inside of your voting booth may or may not be illegal, depending upon what state you're voting in. Unfortunately, Eric Trump posted his ballot picture from New York, a state where "ballot selfies" are still against the law  as a federal judge had affirmed just a few days earlier: illegal New York affirmed A federal judge says he is not overturning a New York state ban against ballot selfies or the showing of a marked election ballot to others. Manhattan Judge P. Kevin Castel said in a written ruling that people who want to publicize their ballot choices can do so through "other powerful means." The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought on behalf of voters. The lawsuit contended that voters had a First Amendment right to share a photograph of their ballot with others, even through social media. Lawyers for the state and New York City argued against it. The state argued that a law more than a century old banned people from showing their marked ballot to others. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." Under the law, which dates from the 19th century, it is a misdemeanor for voters to share the contents of completed ballots. Violators could face up to one year in prison. Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But the judge said that because of the imminence of the election, the voters needed to show a "clear or substantial likelihood" that their lawsuit would succeed before he could issue an injunction, and that they had not done so. "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote. It should be noted that Eric Trump's ballot photograph does not include his name or his picture. While it is assumed that the tweet pictured the real ballot Trump used to cast his vote, that element has not been verified. Ohlheiser, Abby.  "Yes, Your Ballot Selfie Still Might Be Illegal. Sorry."
  Washington Post.  8 November 2016. Stempel, Jonathan.  "Judge Refuses to Block New York 'Ballot Selfie' Law."
  Reuters.  3 November 2016. Whats 700,000 jobs give or take  1 million? Thats the question a new ad from the Charlie Crist campaign hopes to answer for Florida voters. He made a promise, the ad says, showing video of Gov. Rick Scott from the 2010 campaign for governor. Hold me accountable for delivering on the campaign promises I make, Scott says. The ad then shows Scott promising to create 700,000 jobs on top of what normal growth would be. Later, in reaction to a reporters question on that metric, Scott said, No. The ad is paid for by the Florida Democratic Party, but the Crist campaign approved it and promoted it to the media. So were rating it as coming from the Crist campaign. Since 2010, PolitiFact Florida has been tracking Scotts promise to create 700,000 jobs over seven years, so this controversy is very familiar to us. But if youre just tuning in now, well start the story from the beginning. Because of the states housing-driven economy, Florida took a tremendous hit during the financial crash of 2008. By 2010, state economists said that the bottom had hit and Florida would gradually recover. That July, economists predicted that Florida would gradually recover, adding 1 million jobs by 2017 -- no matter who was governor. On July 21, 2010, Scott unveiled his now famous 7-7-7 plan, promising to create 700,000 new jobs in seven years (actuallythe plan was written to create 661,914 jobs, but the Scott campaign rounded up for effect). The jobs would flow from his pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-tax agenda. During the campaign, Scott said that the jobs would come on top of natural growth. Our plan is seven steps to 700,000 jobs, and that plan is on top of what normal growth would be, Scott said duringa 2010 debatehosted by Leadership Florida and the Florida Press Association on Oct. 20. (This is the video shown in the Crist ad.) Accounting for normal growth would make the target 1.7 million jobs over seven years. A few months after Scott took office in 2011, though, he started backtracking. First his staff and then Scott himself announced that they would be counting new jobs toward a goal of 700,000, period, not 700,000 on top of natural growth. When an Associated Press reporter reminded Scott in August 2011 that his original promise was 700,000  jobs on top of natural growth, Scott said, No, thats not true. Members of theSun Sentineleditorial board asked Scott in September 2011 if that was his promise -- Your pledge was for 700,000 in addition to normal growth, wasn't it?'' -- andScott said no. At the time, PolitiFact Florida rated Scott's new positiona Full Flopon our Flip-O-Meter. Scott seems to be sticking to his new metric. In May 2013, Scott said the state was already almost halfway to our 2010 goal of creating 700,000 new jobs in seven years when approximately 302,500 net jobs had been created since December 2010. We rated the claim that he was halfway to his 2010 goal as Mostly False, noting that he still had a ways to go to make it to 1.7 million jobs created. His jobs promise, which we track on our Scott-O-Meter, is ratedIn the Works, because Scott promised the jobs would be created over seven years, and he still has three more years to go. The seven-year yardstick is ignored in Crists latest ad. Our ruling Crists ad says that Scott changed 2010 his 2010 promise of 700,000 jobs created on top of what normal growth would be to just 700,000 jobs. Thats a difference of 1 million jobs, as had been projected by economists. The ad provides a concise but accurate summary of Scotts 2010 pledge and then his public statements that modified the terms. We rate the ads statement True. In December 2023, online advertisements were displayed to YouTube users that showed one or more photos of Five Guys restaurant locations. For example, the caption for one ad read, "They're Closing Doors In 2024. Restaurant Chains Closing 2024."  Also, in Google ads that featured the same photos of Five Guys restaurants, the caption was displayed as follows: "They're Closing Doors in 2024. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Fast Food Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." Several other variations of these ads were also displayed online.  The ads appeared to claim that Five Guys would be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. However, this was false. All of the ads led to an article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." The article's page source code indicated that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed 68 different businesses, most that appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. In other words, the article was fairly long. Nowhere in the apparent 68-slide article was Five Guys mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Five Guys restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through 68 slides for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Five Guys by email to ask if they had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/.