Did President Trump Reverse an Insecticide Ban After Receiving $1 Million from Dow Chemicals?
The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965, and it remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on childrens health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses: Lorsban 1965 remains 2000 This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action  the result of an agreement with the manufacturers  will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children. Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemicals residue on food products by October 31, 2015. mandated Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on 6 November 2015, which suggested  as requested by the petition  that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked: proposal EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos [including] tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos on specific food commodities; on all food commodities treated in food handling and food service establishments in accordance with prescribed conditions; and on specific commodities when used under regional registrations. The agency is proposing to revoke all of these tolerances because EPA cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, are safe. In March 2017, before the EPAs proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt  the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump  reversed course and argued the previous administrations scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition: reversed course In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trumps inauguration fund. Liveris also was scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban.  appointed reports On 19 November 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook Page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action: using text   We explore each component of this memetic claim: Chlorpyrifos Was Invented by the Nazis as a Nerve Agent false. Chlorpyrifos is a specific chemical that belongs to a broader class of chemicals called organophosphates. While the Nazis were at the forefront of developing this broader class as both weapons and insecticides, they can not be credited with inventing chlorpyrifos specifically. In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals. IG Farben interact Originally this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime. required  Shraders discovery led to the discovery and production of some of the worlds most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin gases. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide. led Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical company in a 1963 patent which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to, and during, WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war. patent Chlorpyrifos Causes Brain Damage Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea, in developing such a chemical for use an insecticide, is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects. AChE inhibition From a scientific standpoint, the main controversy surrounds the potential residual effects that chlorpyrifos may have on the neurological development of fetuses and young children, which some studies have documented even at levels well below what is currently considered acceptable. In their 2016 decision to ban all tolerances for the chemical on food, the Environmental Protection Agency stated: In summary, the EPAs assessment is that the [Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health, CCCEH] study, with supporting results from the other 2 U.S. cohort studies and the seven additional epidemiological studies reviewed in 2015, provides sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for AChE inhibition. The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development:  study We investigated associations between [chlorpyrifos, CPF] exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children, 5.911.2 y, selected from a nonclinical, representative community-based cohort. Twenty high-exposure children (upper tertile of CPF concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children on cortical surface features [...]. In a press release this study, CCCEH said: press release Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child [...] Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of [...] CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7. previously reported [...] Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways. There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates to neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the later point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to punt a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date: lacks date Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the 9th Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review, but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panels meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary  even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned:  neglected interview They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid, Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Speaking of the EPAs reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitts decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity: arguing Science should be used to prevent harm and to protect lives. The decision to put the agenda of a corporation over the lives and wellbeing of Americans is an egregious failure of our government to use strong, independent science to protect public health and safety. Chlorpyrifos Was Supposed to Be Banned in 2017, but Trump Is Now Allowing It True. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPAs ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: anti-regulation afforded Act: Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408( d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the Petition. If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by 31 March 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different.  to make a ruling As a result of Trump and Pruitts actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017. Dow Chemicals Gave President Trump $1 Million for His Inauguration True. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trumps inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trumps largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds. described 2009 2013 Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign: report Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the companys $1 million donation to Trumps inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions is completely off the mark. Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, Schikorra said. Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity. Although it is clear that Dow Chemicals actively lobbied against a chlorpyrifos ban, we cannot rule on claims that their $1 million donation influenced Trump or Pruitt to change their view on the issue. lobbied While some aspects of the text included in the Chelsea Handler tweet and Really American petition, such as chlorpyrifoss connection to Nazi Germany and the scientific degree to which irreversible brain damage has been alleged, include some uncertainty, the bulk of its claims are true. The EPAs scientific community was certain enough, despite questions about methods or mechanisms, to agree with the petition that chlorpyrifos posed a risk to neurological health and should be banned. President Donald Trump, who did receive a significant amount of money from Dow Chemicals for his inauguration, unilaterally reversed this decision through his administrator Pruitts actions. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  "Chlorpyrifos: Production, Import/export, Use, and Disposal.
  Accessed 27 November 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos.
  Archived from 19 January 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Dursban Announcement.
  8 June 2000. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  "Pesticide Action Network North America; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  10 August 2015. Regulations.gov.  "Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos.
  6 November 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide.
  29 March 2017. Biesecker, Michael.  "Pesticide Maker Tries to Kill Risk Study."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2017. Associated Press.  "EPA Chief Met with Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide.
  30 June 2017. Everts, Sarah.  "The Nazi Origins of Deadly Nerve Gases."
  C&EN.  17 October 2016. Rauh, Virginia A. et al.  "Brain Anomalies in Children Exposed Prenatally to a Common Organophosphate Pesticide"
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  30 April 2012. Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health.  "Insecticide Linked to Altered Brain Structure.
  30 April 2012. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the April 19-21 2016 FIFRA SAP Meeting Held to Consider and Review Scientific Issues Associated with Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data?
  21 April 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances.
  March 2017. Lipton, Eric.  "E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agencys Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide."
  The New York Times.  29 March 2017. Union of Concerned Scientists.  "How Dow Chemical Influenced the EPA to Ignore the Scientific Evidence on Chlorpyrifos.
  April 2017. Goodell, Jeff.  "Scott Pruitt's Crimes Against Nature."
  Rolling Stone.  27 July 2017. Wilson, Megan R.  "Corporate Donors to Trump Inaugural Revealed."
  Rolling Stone.  2 February 2017.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In July 2020, social media users posted a meme that included a screenshot of an article excerpt that allegedly demonstrated hydroxychloroquine would be an effective "cure and vaccine" against COVID-19.  The claim stems from an opinion piece by Bryan Fischer, former director of the American Family Association, that interpreted a 2005 study on the utility of chloroquine to treat SARS as being relevant to COVID-19  a disease that did not exist at the time of that paper's publication. SARS (aka SARS-CoV, which caused epidemics in the early 2000s) and COVID-19 (aka SARS-CoV-2) are both caused by coronaviruses, but that does not mean that both could be treated with the same medication.  Similarly, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are related drugs, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Finally, the excerpted study was limited in scope and based on laboratory results. Fischer attempted to tie Dr. Anthony Fauci to the 2005 study by falsely alleging that it was published in a journal run by the U.S. agency Fauci heads.   Are SARS and COVID-19 the same? No. While SARS and COVID-19 are both coronaviruses, that does not mean these two diseases are interchangeable, nor that they can be treated with identical medicines. Hundreds of coronaviruses exist, most of which circulate among animals. These viruses occasionally jump to humans and cause diseases that range in severity. The common cold, for instance, which isn't particularly known for being lethal, can be caused by a coronavirus. On the other hand, COVID-19, which has caused more than 150,000 deaths in the United States (and close to 700,000 total deaths worldwide) as of this writing, is also caused by a coronavirus. Nobody would argue that a treatment for the common cold would be equally effective against COVID-19.  Hundreds of coronaviruses exist Fischer attempts to dismiss the fact that SARS and COVID-19 are two distinct diseases by arguing that they share a similar scientific name (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2) and 79% of the same genome. Saying that these two diseases share 79% of their genome sequence may make it sound like these diseases are nearly identical, but consider this: Humans share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees.  98% of our genome Are hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine the same thing? No. Although these drugs are similar (they are both derivatives of a 4-aminoquinoline [4AQ] nucleus), they aren't interchangeable. Chloroquine is primarily used to treat malaria, while hydroxychloroquine, which is considered less toxic than chloroquine, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and certain blood disorders.  CNN writes: writes Chloroquine is used to treat malaria, as well as in chemoprophylaxis, which is the administering of drugs to prevent the development of disease, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2006, it has not been recommended for use in severe malaria because of problems with resistance, particularly in the Oceania region, according to the World Health Organization. [...] Hydroxychloroquine is what's known as an analog of chloroquine, meaning the two have similar structures but different chemical and biological properties. The former is considered the less toxic derivative, according to studies.It's given to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and the blood disorder porphyria cutanea tarda, the CDC said. Did this study prove that chloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No. The 2005 article published in Virology Journal was based on a laboratory cell-culture experiment that used primate cells, not human cells. The authors noted at the time that more testing was needed before antivirals could be developed to treat the disease in humans: Virology Journal Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15]. Together with data presented here, showing virus inhibition in cell culture by chloroquine doses compatible with patient treatment, these features suggest that further evaluation of chloroquine in animal models of SARS-CoV infection would be warranted as we progress toward finding effective antivirals for prevention or treatment of the disease. It should also be noted that this was an in vitro study, meaning that it was conducted in a controlled environment, like a test tube, not inside a living organism. The Universal Health Network, a medical research organization in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted that in vitro models have a reputation of being "less translatable" to humans than other research methods: Universal Health Network A major drawback is their failure to capture the inherent complexity of organ systems. For example, in vitro models may not account for interactions between cells and biochemical processes that occur during turnover and metabolism. As a result, in vitro studies have developed a reputation for being less translatable to humans. More importantly, in the years since the SARS outbreak in 2002, chloroquine has not been widely used to treat the disease.  Did this study say that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No.  The 2005 paper in the Virology Journal never mentions hydroxychloroquine. Was Fauci or the NIH involved in this 2005 paper? No.  As mentioned earlier, the above-displayed screenshot shows an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Fischer, which was published on websites such as One News Now and the conspiratorial True Pundit, a site that traffics in misinformation.  One News Now True Pundit, misinformation Fischer's article is centered on a 2005 paper published in the Virology Journal entitled "Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread." Although this is a genuine article, it was not authored by Fauci. Fischer attempted to connect Fauci to this article by stating that the "Virology Journal [is] the official publication of Dr. Faucis National Institutes of Health [NIH]," but that simply isn't true. The Virology Journal is not an official publication of the NIH.  Virology Journal The Virology Journal is published by Biomed Central (BMC), part of the publishing group Springer Nature, an academic publishing company. Some government researchers were involved with this 2005 study (five of the eight listed authors were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the other three were from Clinical Research Institute of Montreal), but this study did not involve Fauci or anyone else from the NIH. Virology Journal Is hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for COVID-19? No.  As of this writing, hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.  effective treatment Hydroxychloroquine has been an effective treatment for other diseases, such as malaria, but studies have not found the drug to be useful in the fight against COVID-19. In June 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked "the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19," writing that a large, randomized clinical trial showed that the drug provided "no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery." Food and Drug Administration Universal Health Network.  "In vitro vs. In vivo: Is One Better?"
  Retreived 4 August 2020. McLaughlin, Eliott.  "Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: What to Know About the Potential Coronavirus Drugs."
  CNN.  24 March 2020. FDA.  "FDA Cautions Against Use of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for COVID-19 Outside of the Hospital Setting or a Clinical Trial Due to Risk of Heart Rhythm Problems."
  1 July 2020. Seley-Radtke, Katherine.  "Here's Why Hydroxychloroquine Doesn't Block The Coronavirus in Human Lung Cells."
  Science Alert.  1 August 2020. Duply, Beatrice.  "Chloroquine/SARS Study Doesnt Prove Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19."
  Associated Press.  31 July 2020. Niaid.nih.gov.  "Coronaviruses."
  Retrieved 4 August 2020. Silverman, Craig.  "Revealed: Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site True Pundit Is Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against The FBI."
  Buzzfeed. &nbs; 27 August 2018. Virology Journal.  "Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread'"   22 August 2005. True Pundit.  "COVER UP: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; "Nobody Needed to Die.'"
  5 May 2020. Claim:  The Department of Defense has cut off sales of spent cartridge cases to U.S. ammunition manufacturers.  OF AND  OUTDATED INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] Georgia Arms is the 5th largest retailer of .223 Ammo in America.  (they sell 9 mm, .45, etc ammo) They normally buy spent brass from the US Dept of Defense - 'one time used' shell casings by our Military - from training on Military bases, etc.  They buy the brass and then re-load for resale to Law Enforcement, Gun Shops, Gun Clubs, Wal-Mart, and etc. They normally buy 30,000 lbs of spent brass at a time. This week the DoD wrote a letter to the owner of Georgia Arms and said that from now on the DoD will be destroying the brass - shredding it. It is no longer available to the Ammo makers - unless they just buy it in a scrap shredded condition (which they have No use for).  The shredded brass is NOW going to be sold by the DoD to China as scrap metal.... after the DoD pays for it to be shredded. The DoD is selling the brass to China for less money than Ammo manufacturers have been paying... plus the DoD has to pay to have the brass shredded and do all the accounting paperwork.  That sure helps the US economy now, doesn't it?  Sell cheaper to China - and do not sell shells at all to a proven US business.  Any agenda working here???? Obama going after our ammunition!!!!! The Georgia Arms owner even related a story that one of his competitors had already purchased a load of brass last week - and the DoD contacted him this week and said they were sending someone over to make sure it was destroyed.  Shell Casings he had already bought!  THE BRASS HAS NO VALUE TO THE AMMO MAKER IF IT IS DESTROYED/SHREDDED/MELTED.  THE AMMO MANUFACTURER ONLY USES THE EMPTY BRASS SHELLS TO RELOAD DIFFERENT CALIBERS - MAINLY .223 BULLETS. Georgia Arms owner says that he will have to lay off at least Half of his 60 workers, within 2 - 3 months if the DoD no longer sells their spent brass to him. He has 2 - 3 months inventory of shells to use.  By summer - he's out. If he has to buy new manufactured brass shells, then the cost of ammunitioin to the buyer will double and triple. Origins:  The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which in turn is part of the Department of Defense (DoD), is the service "responsible for the disposition of excess and surplus DoD property" and is tasked with "protecting national security by ensuring property is properly identified for reutilization and disposition and not released for public sale when to do so would jeopardize national security." DRMS In March 2009, while reviewing a policy change issued by the DoD the previous year, the DLA halted or reclassified the sale of a broad category of items, a  category which included spent cartridge cases. This event caused consternation among manufacturers and purchasers of ammunition because it cut off some ammunition manufacturers from their largest supply of brass casings, as U.S. senators Max Baucas and Jon Tester noted in a letter on the  subject to the DLA: "This reclassification has an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use." letter The issue was quickly resolved, however: a week later the DLA issued a press release announcing that upon completion of their review, they had determined that cartridge cases "could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale": press release Small arms cartridge cases are identified as a sensitive Munitions List item and were held pending review of the policy relating to the category of items in which cartridge cases were included. Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale. The DRMS sales contractor has been notified of this decision and has begun the process of reoffering the cases that have been held pending completion of the policy review. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) also issued a statement on 18 March 2009  which noted (in part): statement [T]he Department of Defense informed NRA-ILA that fired military small arms cartridge cases are once again eligible for sale, following a temporary suspension in such sales instituted last week. NRA-ILA began discussions with DoD shortly after the suspension took effect, and we were assured from the beginning that efforts were underway to resolve the issue favorably.  In announcing that the suspension has been lifted, DoD also made clear that no cartridge cases that, in the absence of the suspension, would have been sold for reloading purposes were destroyed while the suspension was in effect. Such cases were instead protected by DoD during the suspension, and are again eligible for sale. With ammunition currently in short supply, that was welcome news, to be sure.  DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.  To make cartridge cases eligible for sale once again, DoD demilitarization officials verified that the cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for use within the United States, and then executed the recategorization. Whereas during the brief suspension, fired cartridge cases would have been releaseable only if the purchaser crushed or smelted them, now the cases may be sold as before, intact and reloadable. Last updated:  19 April 2009    Gonsalves, Chris.  "Feds Lift Rule That Threatened Ammo Shortages."   Newsmax.  19 March 2009.     Johnson, Tonya.  "Small Arms Cartridge Case Policy Revised."   Defense Logistics Agency   20 March 2009. As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General. ...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION.   The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes  including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees  as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report.  Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy  then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company  appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house.     Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members  Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars  since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars  DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.  home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy  that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below)  took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly     That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together  this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service  which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses  faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year  or the end of September  without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services.  XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics   As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly  but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes  contradicting previous rules for deliveries  and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:  contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that  temporarily  we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do  [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this  it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day  even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner  an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing. ...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined. ... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party. ... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020  a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays  although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
 The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
 Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
 USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
 The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
 The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
 NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
 News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
 Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
 Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
 The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
 Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
 The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
 The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
 The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
 The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
 The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
 Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." Sen. Mark Warners re-election stump speech dwells on giving everyone an equal opportunity and high on that list is an affordable college education. Warner and many of his fellow Democrats have called for legislation that would ease student debt by allowing students to refinance their federal college loans at substantially lower interest rates and limit their loan repayments to 10 percent of their annual income. President Barack Obama endorsed those measures during a speech Monday.. Warner, during a recent speech of his own,said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. This statistic caught our attention, so we put it to the Truth-O-Meter. David Turner, spokesman for Warners campaign, backed up the statement by sending us aspeechby an official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anddatafrom the Federal Reserve System. Both of those sources say that student debt has topped $1 trillion and the speech noted that it had surpassed credit cards. But the best data comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which publishesdebt statisticsevery quarter. In the most recent report, covering first three months of 2014, student loan debt totaled $1.1 trillion, while credit card debt hit $659 billion. The largest type of debt for Americans is mortgages, which came in at $8.2 trillion in the first quarter. Student loan debt is No. 2, followed by automobile loans at $875 billion and credit card debt in making up $11.7 trillion in all debt. Student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, when college loans hit $762 billion. Student debt topped the $1 trillion mark in the third quarter of last year. Average tuition across the nation increased 79.5 percent from 2003-2013, according todatafrom the U.S. Labor Department. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index grew by26.7percent during the same span and average wages grew by30.1percent. Credit card debt, by contrast, has gradually fallen from $843 billion in early 2009 to its $659 billion level this year. Much of the decrease occurred during the recession when people cut back on spending. But the recession exacerbated college debts, according to Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. She cited two reasons: You have to remember that during the time of the Great Recession, more people were going back to school because of the job situation, so they were taking on more debt, she said. Astudyshe co-wrote tackled the demographics of people with student loan debt. It found that student loan debt, for those ages 29 to 37, had increased by $10,381 on average from 1989 to 2010, while car loans had increased $302, credit card debt had increased $1,215 and other debt had decreased $2,078. In 2012, 40 percent of Americans in their 20s had student debt, 30 percent in their 30s owed on student loans, 19 percent of Americans in their 40s, 12 percent in their 50s and 4 percent in their 60s. This included students and parents who borrowed to send their children to college. Our ruling Warner said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. His figure on student debt is accurate and total U.S. credit card debt in the first quarter of this year was $659 billion. We rate Warners statement True. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. When it comes to family budgets, one of the biggest bites can be child-care costs. Just how big is that bite? Child care costs account for 24% of a WI familys budget.This is well above the 10% affordability threshold established by the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human services. Paid Family Leave would allow parents the flexibility necessary 2 ensure they are able 2 put their family first, state Rep. David Crowley, D-Milwaukee, saidOct. 22, 2019in a Twitter post. Crowleys tweet came on the same day Assembly Democrats reintroduced the Wisconsin Family Medical Leave Insurance Act. Under the bill, Wisconsin workers without employer-funded family medical leave would be able to buy into a state-run insurance program. The proposal would expand the states current family medical leave law to allow individuals to take leave for more family members, including care of grandparents and siblings. According to a Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, a covered individual who is on family or medical leave would be eligible, beginning on Jan. 1, 2024, to receive up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave insurance benefits. This is thethird timethe measure has been introduced; it has not gained support from Republican lawmakers. Is Crowley, who has announced hiscandidacyfor Milwaukee County executive, on target about the cost of child care for Wisconsin families? Lets take a look. The evidence When asked for backup, Crowleys staff pointed us to a 2018United Wayreport. The report focused on a population group that has been given the acronym ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The ALICE Report was part of a collaboration between the United Way in Wisconsin and 16 other states. Indeed, the report itself includes a line that is nearly identical to Crowleys tweet: In the Household Survival Budget, child care accounts for24 percentof the Wisconsin family budget, well above the 10 percent affordability threshold established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But where did the numbers come from? Officials with the state Department of Children and Families told us they do not collect that data. They pointed us to a series of advocacy groups, as opposed to any government agency or repository. According to the United Way, the reports child care budget is based on the average annual cost of care for one infant and one preschooler in registered family child care homes -- the least expensive childcare option. The most recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports,dating from 2016onward, recommend that child care be considered affordable if out-of-pocket costs are equivalent to 7% of total household income. In earlier years, dating back to at least 2015, the federal benchmark for child care affordability was reported as 10%, the figure referenced in the second part of Crowleys tweet. Additional groups Other advocacy groups have done their own tallies -- though each measures a slightly different thing: Economic Policy Institute: A July 2019 report from the institute puts the average cost of infant child care in Wisconsin at $12,597 a year. The report states that care for one infant would take up 18.5% of a median familys income in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is ranked 20th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia for most expensive infant care. The groupssource listincludes the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Child Care Aware of America and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Care Aware: According to a2017 report, the average cost of center-based infant care across all states tops 27% of the median income for single parents, an increase of 3 percentage points from findings in the groups 2016 report, Parents and the High Cost of Care. The group says it obtains data through surveys of state child-care referral agencies. For states that did not respond to the survey, child care capacity and price data was pulled from publicly accessible databases and market rate surveys. Center for American Progress: On average, a family making the state median income in the United States would have to spend 18% of its income to cover the cost of child care for an infant, according to a November 2018report. The 18% number is based on the state median income for a family of four, which comes from 2018U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesdata. Its also important to flag that the 18% number is the cost of child care for an infant in a center-based program. If you are focused on home-based child care as implied by one part of the statement we would note that the number for home-based family care is 11%, Steven Jessen-Howard, a Center for American Progress spokesman, said in an email. The high cost of child care is out of reach for most working families, said Simon Workman, co-author of the American Progress report in a statement. In short, each of the studies support Crowleys central point that child care costs consume a far greater share of an average Wisconsin familys budget than is recommended -- though the estimates vary, from 11% to 27%. Our ruling Crowley said child care costs account for 24% of a WI familys budget. Child care costs can vary, of course, based on age of the child, number of children receiving care and where the care is provided. But each of the available reports supports Crowleys main point -- that the costs far exceed the recommended amount -- even if the numbers come up somewhat different in each analysis. At PolitiFact Wisconsin, a statement is Mostly True when it is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. This fact-check has been updated to change an emailed quote mistakenly attributed to Julia Cusick of the Center for American Progress to Steven Jessen-Howard from the same organization. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians.  shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!!   Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19.  shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent.  database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness  like COVID-19  is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace.  "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?"
 Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian."
  Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion."
  9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion."
  14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion."
  24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?"
  Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights."
  December 2016. In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006. Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts:  Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain:   The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016.