It is stated that Texas charter schools receive full state funding per student, whereas district schools, which educate 95% of students, receive approximately one-third of their funding from the state with the remainder coming from local property taxes, leading to the high taxes. Districts receive less funding due to limited resources being directed towards charter schools.
A Democratic legislator declared that state aid fully fuels Texas charter schools while schools serving the vast bulk of students field less money. State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters. Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement. Texas charter schools--public schools with charters run most often by private nonprofit entities--have boomed since the 1995 Legislature authorized them by law. Such schools must meet state-set academic accountability standards, but theyre exempted from other laws affecting districts such as teacher certification and elementary school class-size limits. To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled. Lets break down Howards tweet by its factual elements. Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16. Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students. Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019. Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid. Howard said the states one-third share of what schools spend is why school property taxes are so high:  To the contrary, we asked Howard, isnt it changes in the value of local property tax bases that drive how much state aid a district is entitled to receive? Howard replied with a statement noting that a districts per-pupil tax wealth is key to how much state aid flows. When students leave a district for a charter (or private school or drop out), the (districts) property wealth per student increases as there are fewer students, and the state's required minimum share to the district is decreased, Howard said. The TEAs Culbertson separately responded by email: One of the primary drivers of the Texas school finance system is student attendance. If a student leaves a school district for any reason, including moving out of state, enrolling in another school district, public charter school, or private school (including home school), the original school district would no longer incur the costs of educating that student, and the original school districts total funding entitlement would be reduced. Howard said districts get less money because dollars go to charter schools: Cottingham told us Howard reached that conclusion by reviewing changes in per-student state spending on charter schools and districts. Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance:  SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018) According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019. Cottingham told us the fact that state aid to districts goes up or down based on the value of local tax bases helps explain why districts are projected to get increasingly less in state aid than charter schools. Charter schools, he said, can count by law on getting each years full average adjusted state-aid allotment in contrast to districts whose allocations are affected by how much theyre expected to reap in property taxes. By phone, Amanda Brownson of  the Texas Association of School Business Officials offered a similar analysis. Another facet noted by Cottingham: The state ponies up the full per-student entitlement cost of each student--costing the state more than each per-student payment sent to districts. Of late, the August 2018 TEA presentation says, charter schools draw an adjusted state allotment of $6,540--equivalent, the agency says, to what a small district receives. Meantime, the presentation says, more than 95 percent of students enrolled in districts are in districts getting less than $6,540 in state allotments. We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more. Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools. This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said. Our ruling Howard said Texas charter schools get all their per-student aid from the state while school districts, which serve 95 percent of students, get a third of their funding that way with the rest drawn from property taxes. Also, Howard said, districts get less because scarce dollars go to charter schools. Howards points about student enrollment and state funding going to charter schools and school districts hold up. Its also true that a student who leaves a district school to attend a charter school costs the district state aid while that student brings the charter school thousands of dollars more in per-pupil state aid than what the district would get. This dense tweet lacks the clarification that upticks or slides in local property values greatly affect whether a district faces ups or downs in state aid. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
Claim:  Letter from high school offers to allow students to make monetary donations to offset inatttendance and poor grades.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July  2013] There is a picture of a copy of a letter circulating, allegedly from a prominent suburban Chicago high school initiating an "Earned Academic Rewards Network" program whereby students can make monetary donations to offset tardyies, absences, homework assignments and/or test scores:    Origins:  This image of a purported letter from Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire,  Illinois, began circulating on the Internet on 8 July 2013.  The text of the alleged missive announces a new effort by the school's Social Studies department to boost unsatisfactory student achievement by introducing a program which allows freshman to make "charitable contributions" ranging from $10 to $35 in order to receive homework passes, extra credit points, and test exemptions, as well as to offset unexcused tardies.  Such "donated funds" would go towards improving the school's infrastructure, providing new technology for school offices, and relieving "budgetary constraints for teachers." On 10 July 2013, administrators posted a notice on the school's Facebook page advising inquirers that the letter was a hoax: Facebook There is a fake Stevenson letter being circulated via social media, claiming students can pay donations for excusing tardies and homework, receiving extra credit, and test exemptions. This is a hoax, and IS NOT a Stevenson letter, program, or from a Stevenson employee. This is not something the District would ever endorse. Apparently the letter was not intended as a prank, but was something created as a teaching tool for a history class:  [Eric Twadell, superintendent of Stevenson High School District 125, said,] "It turned out a teacher had created [the letter] and used it as a modern-day example of what papal indulgences may look like [today] compared to 500 years ago in the medieval realm. People would pay off the Pope for ridiculous things ... I think (the teacher) used it as an illustrative tool." Stevenson teachers have used the letter for "many, many years" to teach a unit on medieval Rome in world history classes, he said. Last updated:  10 July 2013 Most of the April Fool's pranks that appear on the Internet on or around April 1 have petered out by a day or two later; some of the more subtle satirical articles may continue to circulate for a few days longer before some readers recognize them as humor rather than genuine news stories.  For whatever reason, though, a "mummified fairy" prank of 2007 was still going strong well after April 1 had come and gone, even though its creator had long since admitted to the hoax and the fictional tale had been exposed by major news outlets: Do fairies live at the bottom of your garden? Maybe not anymore but a recent discovery would suggest that they probably did. What appear to be the mummified remains of a fairy have been discovered in the Derbyshire countryside. The 8 inch remains complete with wings, skin, teeth and flowing red hair have been examined by archaeologists and forensic experts who can confirm that the body is genuine. X-rays of the fairy reveal an anatomically identical skeleton to that of a child. The bones, however, are hollow like those of a bird making them particularly light. The puzzling presence of a navel even suggests that the beings reproduce the same as humans despite the absence of reproductive organs.  The mummified fairy supposedly found in Derbyshire by a dog walker at Firestone Hill near Duffield was the work of former Derbyshire resident Dan Baines, a prop maker.  Baines posted an article (titled "Do Fairies Live at the Bottom of Your Garden?") presenting an elaborate backstory about the creature's discovery, along with several close-up photographs of the small, detailed fairy figure he created, on a web site a few days before April Fool's Day 2007.  The hoax was quite the hit for a few days as netizens debated its details and origins, and then on April 1 Baines 'fessed up by appending the following message to his fairy article: article Thank you for the interest you have shown in my story.    Even if you believe in fairies, as I personally do, there will always have been an element of doubt in your mind that would suggest the remains are a hoax. However, the magic created by the possibility of the fairy being real is something you will remember for the rest of your life.    Alas the fairy is fake but my interest and belief has allowed me to create a work of art that is convincing and magical. I was also interested to see if fairy folklore is still a valid belief in modern society and I am pleased to say that yes it is! I have had more response from believers than I ever thought possible.   As well as an artist I am also a magician and you have been my fantastic audience. That spark of magic ignited your imagination and made your day more memorable and exciting.    I believe fairies to be Earth spirits rather than physical beings so my performance was slightly flawed. The question stills begs to answered though, are they made of flesh and blood like you and I?    I hope you have not been offended by the events of the past few days but if you are I sincerely apologise. It took 50 years for the Cottingley fairies to be revealed as a hoax; at least youve only had to endure a few days of mystery. The prank was even prominent enough to merit coverage by the BBC: Photographs of a mummified fairy supposedly found in Derbyshire have been revealed as an April Fool's prank.  Former Derbyshire resident Dan Baines, 31, who designs illusions for magicians, made the fairy as a prank.  The site got 20,000 hits in one day from fairy believers. "Although I've said it's a hoax, people still believe that it's real," said Mr Baines. "They believe this is just a cover-up so let the illusion continue."  He added that it had taken him four hours a day to answer all of his emails.  "I've had all sorts of comments including people who say they've seen exactly the same things and one person who told me to return the remains to the grave site as soon as possible or face the consequences," he said.  The fairy is about eight inches long with details such as a navel, ears and hair added for authenticity.  Mr Baines added that he had now become addicted to April Fool's jokes and told people to "watch this space" for future pranks. Dan Baines later put his fairy figure up for auction on eBay, where it fetched a high bid of 280.00.  eBay BBC News.  "Fairy Fool Sparks Huge Response."
  1 April 2007. The Sun Online.  "Mummy Fetches Fairy Good Price."
  11 April 2007. 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 April 2020, reports started to circulate that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had provided the Wuhan Institute of Virology a $3.7 million grant in 2015, while former U.S. President Obama was still in office. These reports were often accompanied by the evidence-free suggestion that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 had "escaped" from this lab and the insinuation that, since this lab reportedly received funding from the Obama administration, the pandemic was therefore Obama's fault. circulate  This claim received widespread attention on April 17 when a reporter from the conservative outlet Newsmax asked President Donald Trump about it during a White House press briefing.  Newsmax reporter Emerald Robinson asked: "Thank you, Mr. President. U.S. Intelligence is saying this week that the coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in Wuhan. There's also another report that the NIH under the Obama administration in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?" Trump responded: "The Obama administration gave them a grant of $3.7 million. I've been hearing about that. And we've instructed that if any grants are going to that area we're looking at it, literally about an hour ago, also early in the morning, we will end that grant very quickly. But it was granted quite awhile ago. They were granted a substantial amount of money." There's a lot to unpack there, so let's start with the basic claim: Did the Obama administration grant $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Between 2014 and 2019, the EcoHealth Alliance was awarded a series of grants totaling approximately $3.7 million by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (a division of the National Institutes of Health) to study the "risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China." Only a portion of this money has been used to fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, however, and approximately $700,000 of this grant money was awarded under the Trump administration. Despite having a grain of truth at its core, the claim that the Obama administration gave a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology is therefore misleading at best. It first gained prominence on April 11, 2020, on the heels of an article published in the Daily Mail. The British tabloid claimed that it had obtained documents showing that coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been funded by a $3.7 million grant from the U.S. government: Daily Mail "Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday show the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan  funded by a $3.7 million grant from the US government." The Daily Mail did not provide links or screenshots to these documents. They did, however, write that this money funded a research paper published in November 2017 entitled: "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus." This is the title of a genuine paper published by researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's also true that this paper was partially funded by money granted by the National Institutes of Health. However, when we followed up using the grant number listed in the funding section of the paper (NIAID R01AI110964), we found that the NIH did not directly issue this series of grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. genuine paper funding section The Department of Health and Human Services' Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) shows that NIAID R01AI110964 was awarded to the EcoHealth Alliance for "understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence." Between 2014 and 2019, this global environmental health nonprofit organization received a total of $3.7 million from NIH: NIAID R01AI110964   While a portion of these grants funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, this lab did not receive all $3.7 million. Under award number NIAID R01AI110964, NIH also funded studies produced by institutions in the United States, Australia, and Singapore, and the work involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology was an international collaboration with the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance. studies United States Australia Singapore EcoHealth Alliance Furthermore, while these funds were originally appropriated by the NIH in 2014 during the Obama administration, the most recent payment, in 2019, was authorized by the Trump administration. The payments record in the above-displayed image from the Department of Health and Human Services show that the EcoHealth Alliance filed "Noncompeting Continuation" applications in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. In 2019, however, the organization filed a renewal application (previously called a "competing continuation"). This renewal application was awarded by the NIH under Trump's administration. Here's how NIH defines these two different types of grant applications: defines Renewal: Initial request for additional funding for a period subsequent to that provided by a current award. Renewal applications compete for funding with all other peer reviewed applications and must be developed as fully as though the applicant is applying for the first time. (Previously referred to as "competing continuation.") Noncompeting Continuation: Request or award for a subsequent budget period within a previously approved project for which a recipient does not have to compete with other applications. Although the initial grant was approved under the Obama administration in 2014, EcoHealth Alliance's renewal application was approved by the Trump administration in 2019.  It should also be noted that these grants were not awarded to fund a laboratory. They were awarded to fund research into how bat coronavirus could emerge and spread to human populations. The purpose of this kind of research, spurred into action by the 2002 SARS outbreak, is to understand the process of how coronaviruses become transmissible to humans. That earlier outbreak was also caused by a coronavirus linked to bats. purpose Is it unusual for the United States to fund research in other countries?  In short, no. While this claim is often circulated as if the Obama administration did something unusual, or even nefarious, by awarding a series of grants that would subsequently fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the United States routinely provides funding to international research organizations. In fact, records show that the NIH has provided approximately $2.5 million in additional funding to various organizations in China (including Wuhan University) in 2018 and 2019, under the Trump administration. In 2007, while George W. Bush was president, NIH provided more than $2 million to various research centers across China.  records show provided Furthermore, international organizations often come together to solve problems that could impact the global population, such as pandemic. In 2003, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) called on countries around the world to develop a diagnostic test for SARS.  2003 World Health Organization On 17 March 2003, WHO called upon 11 laboratories in 9 countries to join a collaborative multi-center research project on SARS diagnosis. This network takes advantage of modern communication technologies (e-mail; secure web site) to share outcomes of investigation of clinical samples from SARS cases in real time. Daily assessment of research results supports immediate refinement of investigative strategies and permits instant validation of laboratory findings. Network members share on the secure WHO web site electron microscopic pictures of viruses, sequences of genetic material for virus identification and characterization, virus isolates, various samples from patients and post-mortem tissues. Samples from one and the same patient can be analysed in parallel in several laboratories and results shared in real time. This network joins the intellectual resources of leading laboratories worldwide for a common goal: the detection of the SARS agent and the development of a diagnostic test. The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a similar call to action: spurred While political leaders have locked their borders, scientists have been shattering theirs, creating a global collaboration unlike any in history. Never before, researchers say, have so many experts in so many countries focused simultaneously on a single topic and with such urgency. Nearly all other research has ground to a halt Lloyd-Smith, James.  "Predictions of Virus Spillover Across Species."
 Nature.  29 June 2017. Owen, Glen.  "Wuhan Lab Was Performing Coronavirus Experiments on Bats From the Caves Where the Disease is Believed to Have Originated - With a 3m Grant From the US."
  Daily Mail.  11 April 2020. Dilanian, Ken and Courtney Kube.  "U.S. Intel Community Examining Whether Coronavirus Emerged Accidentally From a Chinese Lab."
  NBC News.  16 April 2020. Baier, Bret and Gregg Re.  "Sources Believe Coronavirus Outbreak Originated in Wuhan Lab as Part of China's Efforts to Compete with US."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Apuzza, Matt and David Kirkpatrick.  "Covid-19 Changed How the World Does Science, Together."
  The New York Times.  14 April 2020. Barclay, Eliza.  "Why These Scientists Still Doubt the Coronavirus Leaked From a Chinese Lab."
  Vox.  23 April 2020. United Nations.   "UN Mobilizes Global Cooperation in Science-Based COVID-19 Responses." 
 Retrieved 23 April 2020. McNeil, Donald.  "Scientists Were Hunting for the Next Ebola. Now the U.S. Has Cut Off Their Funding."
  The New York Times.  25 October 2019. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking in Austin, bemoaned widening income differences between the countrys very rich and the rest of us. And in his remarks at aSouth Austin union hall, the Vermont independentmulling a runfor the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination also warned about American failures to save money. Heres something not talked about, something that can make us all very, very nervous, Sanders said. Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. And you know what that means and you know why people are so stressed out? If you have less than $10,000, he said, that means an automobile accident, a divorce, a serious illness, a crisis of one kind or another can drive you into bankruptcy and financial disaster. Is he right that half of us have less than $10K in savings? Sanders backup To our inquiry, a Sanders spokesman, Jeff Franks, said by email that Sanders relied on an April 2014USA Todaynews storyquoting a survey indicating 52 percent of U.S. workers had said they had less than $10,000 in total savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement. It did not include their homes or defined benefit plans, such as traditional pensions that could be used for retirement Specifically, the story said, 36 percent of workers said they had less than $1,000 in such savings and investments with another 16 percent of workers reporting $1,000 to $9,999 in such savings and investments. Those results came from a telephone survey of 1,000 workers and 501 retirees by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald and Associates. Next, we spotted a chart on the institutes website drawn from the same 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey. The 52 percent of workers reporting less than $10,000 in savings and investments in 2014 is up from 39 percent in 2009, the chart shows. Of course, workers isnt all of us. We called the Washington, D.C.-based institute,which saysit was founded in 1978 to deliver unbiased information on employee benefit plans so that decisions affecting the system may be made based on verifiable facts. By phone, researcher Craig Copeland told us that overall, 51 percent of survey respondents, meaning retirees and others, had less than $10,000 in financial savings. Also by phone, Ruth Helman of Greenwald and Associates, which helped do the survey, paused at the senators wording. Strictly speaking, their savings account isnt correct. Its total savings wherever it may be, under the mattress or wherever, Helman said. Federal Reserve Bank We wondered if there were other ways of looking at savings. Several experts urged us to contact the Federal Reserve Bank, which conducts a survey focused on consumer finances every three years.Its latest survey, drawing on data collected in 2013, resulted in a chart pointed out by Copeland indicating that the median value of financial savings outside of a pension or home reported by the nearly 95 percent of families who had bank accounts or stocks, bonds and other financial assets that year was $21,200, down from $23,000 in the boards 2010 survey. SOURCE:Report,Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 2014 Copeland said that given that more than 5 percent of families reported no such financial assets, its reasonable to speculate that families overall had median financial savings of less than $20,000. We also asked reserve board officials to analyze the senators savings accounts statement. By phone, William Emmons and Bryan Noeth, both employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, raised questions. For instance, why not count a familys home or pension as part of its savings? Reminder: The institute, with its focus on savings for retirement, set aside these asset categories. Emmons said: People do count on their housing equity, not only in retirement, but before that. Beyond that, the pair said, its not always meaningful to focus on money held in savings accounts, which are a single wealth indicator. A savings account isnt where everybody holds their money, Noeth said. The two said a potentially superior way to gauge how Americans are faring, savings-wise, would be to consider net worth meaning family assets compared to debts. An agency manager, Adriene Dempsey, emailed usa spreadsheetshowing that according to the boards 2013 survey, 26 percent of U.S. families had less than $10,000 in net worth--a tick worse than the 25 percent of families according to its 2010 study. In 2013, half of American families had about $81,500 in net wealth or more, according to the spreadsheet. Total assets for a family include financial assets, such as bank accounts, mutual funds and securities plus tangible assets, including real estate, vehicles and durable goods, according to aFebruary 2015 essayby the St. Louis Fed.Weve elaborated on this here. So by the net-worth metric, more families are better off than if one focused on financial savings alone. We ran this net worth angle past the institutes Coleman, who reminded by email that its survey (relied on by Sanders) took into account financial assets, not just savings accounts. Our ruling Sanders said: Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. Some clarification went missing here: A 2014 survey indicated about half of American adults had less than $10,000 in savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement; those results encompassed more than savings accounts. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Wendy Davis, asked if shes unethically profited while in public office, suggested her opponent has committed infractions including one that resulted from hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. Responding to a reporter at the Sept. 30, 2014,gubernatorial debatein Dallas, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Fort Worth state senator accused Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, her Republicanfoe, of selling out Texans to serve the interests of people who make donations to his campaign. As an example, Davis pointed out payday lenders who have given Abbotts campaign $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees. Davis was revisiting a topic shes consistently explored: that a 2006 letter from Abbotts state office allowed payday lenders to skirt state lending laws. After Davis proclaimed link between Abbotts campaign donations and official action wasdescribedby theEl Paso Timesin January 2014, we foundHalf Trueher statement that Texas payday lenderswere charging 1,000 percent interest. In rare instances, lenders charged 1,000 percent annual interest, but payday loan rates then averaged 465 percent. For this fact check, we gauged whether Abbott piled up hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and then issued a ruling favorable to payday lenders, which offer low-dollar, high-interest short-term loans targeting low-income people who live paycheck to paycheck. The loans are generally for $100 and $500 and are most often issued for two weeks. Theyre considered risky because low-income borrowers are relatively unlikely to be able to pay them back. Abbott campaign contributions To our inquiry about the $300,000 described as given to Abbott, Davis campaign spokesman Zac Petkanas emailed usrecordsof Abbott campaign contributionsas filed in campaign reports atthe Texas Ethics Commission covering Sept. 16, 2002 nearly through July 2014. Our own sampling of state records showed Abbotts campaign fielded: --$80,000 from Trevor Ahlberg, CEO of Irving-based payday lender Cash Store, in eight  installments from Aug. 16, 2006 to June 16, 2014; --$57,500 from Roderick Aycox, founder of Georgia-based payday lender LoanMax, in five installments from Nov. 12, 2009 to June 9, 2014; --$30,500 from Cash America International Inc. PAC in 14 contributionsfrom Sept. 16, 2002 to July 29, 2014; --$30,000 from Ace Cash Express Inc. PAC, in eight donations from Oct. 5, 2005 to July 29, 2014. Then again, according to Petkanas and state records, less than 5 percent of the tallied payday-lender donations, or $13,000, had come in by Jan. 12, 2006, which was the date Abbotts office issued the ruling criticized by Davis. By phone, Petkanas said Davis did not mean to sayin the debate that all the $300,000 was given before Abbotts office ruled on payday lending. Texas Payday Lenders: Regulation and Evasion There's a lot of background to state actions involving payday lenders. In 1999, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, Abbotts predecessor,filed lawsuitsagainst selected payday lenders, saying the companies were dodging state laws regulating interest rates. Separately, ausury provisionin the Texas Constitution caps interest rates on short-term loans from unlicensed lenders at 10 percent. Cornyn,saying lenders were getting away with interest rates of up to 1,000 percent, said: This kind of abusive payday lending is illegal in Texas, and those companies who continue this practice will face serious consequences. An October2000 reportby the Sunset Advisory Commission found that in recent years, different types of lending businesses have attempted to evade regulation including payday lenders. It recommended the Legislature authorize the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner to regulate payday loans in order to help control unlawful interest rates. In 2001, state lawmakers agreed tochanges in lawbringing payday lending under the offices regulation and directing the Texas Finance Commission to adoptrulesguiding the industry. According to a May 2001bill analysisby the House Research Organization, the requested rules would prohibit a lender from using a device, pretense, or subterfuge to avoid regulation of the lenders transactions, including by recharacterizing fees on a loan as a purchase of a good or service. Resulting additions to Texas law includea chartspecifying acceptable fees for payday loans of various dollar amounts and durations. But in subsequent years, according toAustin American-Statesmannews reports, Texas payday lenders found a way around the law by partnering with out-of-state banks, which financed payday loans out of the reach of Texas laws. State and national legislators then raised concerns about payday lenders dodging the restrictions; the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation cracked down in 2005,limiting the numberof payday loans a bank could issue and constricting the profitability of partnerships between payday lenders and banks. Thats when Texas payday lenders, under pressure from regulation, started transitioning to a new business model, called acredit service organization(CSO) in summer 2005, theStatesmanreported In January 2006. Its news story said Texas payday lenders ditched partnerships with FDIC-regulated banks and began working with third-party unregistered lenders. It also said Texas payday lenders got a boost recently from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in the form of a letter affirming the legality of the CSO model. Between 2004 and 2014, payday lender storefronts increased more than tenfold in Texas, theEl Paso TimesreportedFeb. 4, 2014. Abbotts interpretation of state law Next, we looked at the Abbott ruling declared by Davis. It turned out to be an aide's legal analysis. In 2005, the attorney generals office, headed by Abbott, fielded two requests to review the legality of payday-lender CSOs, agency spokesman Jerry Strickland said by email, one an August 2005 verbal request from the consumer credit commissioner, who inquired after a court case raised questions about whether the state had any sway over CSOs. In Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., the plaintiff accused payday lender Ritemoney Ltd. of disguising illegal interest fees as service charges. A state district judge, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, wrote that Texas law does not construe such credit service fees as disguised interest, and the complaint was dismissed. Strickland said the other request for Abbotts judgment camein writingSept. 8, 2005 from then-state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. Shapleigh wrote that as a CSO, a payday lending company dodges both federal guidelines restricting payday loans and the interest-rate limits established by the Texas Finance Commission. As the states leading enforcement agency, it is imperative that your office investigate this new business model and take necessary enforcement actions against businesses purposefully and illegally skirting Texas laws. On Jan. 12, 2006, Barry McBee, the states first assistant attorney general,signed a letterresponding to the commissioner, Leslie Pettijohn, saying there was nothing patently illegal about payday lender CSOs under state lawand there was no statutory limit to the fees they could charge. McBees letter pointed out that, in keeping with state law, payday lender CSOs were charging the maximum-permitted 10 percent interest on loans plus service fees to arrange the loan between a borrower and third-party lender. He wrote that, according toChapter 393 of the Texas Finance Code, there is not any limit on the amount of fees a CSO can charge in such transactions. Any discussion of whether the use of this model is the best public policy choice for the State of Texas, McBee wrote, is one that must be addressed by the Legislature and has not been explored by this office. Legislative Review In the 2013 legislative session, lawmakersdebatedreformingpayday lending practices, but attemptsstalled. Expert Analysis By phone, Don Baylor, a former senior policy analyst for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving low-income Texans, said that after the Lovick v. Ritemoney ruling, payday lenders remained uncertain if they could legally operate as CSOs. But, Baylor said, its fair to say the OAG letter provided enough regulatory certainty for the entire (payday lending) industry to jump on board with the CSO model. Baylor also said that after the Lovick ruling, the attorney general doesnt have the authority to prohibit loans from being made under the CSO model. He credited the explosion of payday lender CSOs to ambiguous wording in the 1987Credit Services Organization Act, which was written to help Texans improve credit scores and not with payday lenders in mind, he said. Payday lenders found the CSO costume and dressed up in the costume, said Baylor. Its a very creative way they came up with to get around the constitutional usury limits. Our Ruling Davis said paydaylenders gave Abbott $300,000 in campaign donations and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees. This statement references a 2006 legal analysis -- not a ruling -- from a top state aide to Abbott that tracked with a court ruling permitting payday lenders to charge unlimited fees in spite of state caps on related interest. Clarification is needed in that only 5 percent of the described $300,000 in donations occurred before the analysis was issued. Regardless, Abbott's office reaffirmed a way for politically supportive payday lenders to squeeze Texas borrowers. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Milwaukee County SheriffDavid A. Clarke Jr.regularlyuses the mediato criticize other elected officials -- having, for example, accused Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele ofpenis envyand Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett of beingclueless. In contrast, Milwaukee County District AttorneyJohn Chisholmrarely engages in public political battles. So it was a surprise when Chisholm excoriated Clarkein a letteron June 2, 2014. Among other things, Chisholm said the Sheriff's Office was running a budget deficit partly because Clarke has deputies collecting overtime while sitting passively in chairs watching courthouse security personnel work. Chisholms charge seemed worthy of a look. The backdrop The district attorneys letter was in response toa letterhe and the countys chief judge received a few days earlier from Clarke. Clarke, in the wake ofa shootingof a 10-year-old Milwaukee girl, who was gravely wounded in the crossfire between two men on a playground, called for temporarily suspending plea bargaining and probation sentences for major crimes. For years, he wrote, the county's prosecutors and judges had engaged in soft-on-crime practices. Security checkpoints Security checkpoints for the county courthouse complex, which includes the Public Safety Building and the Criminal Justice Facility, are not the responsibility of the Sheriffs Office but rather the county Division of Facilities Management. In other words, county workers, not sheriffs deputies, check visitors and operate metal detectors at the various entrances to the complex. The security work is not part of the sheriffs budget. Clarke, however, has asserted his authority to help provide security. In March 2013,Clarke announcedthat during an integrity check, an undercover sheriff's deputy with a gun cleared security checkpoints at all six entrances into the county courthouse complex. He said that, as a result, he had ordered deputies posted at each security checkpoint in the complex until he is convinced weapons cannot get through. He said the staffing would be paid for with overtime. That staffing is continuing. When we checked the entrances one afternoon in June 2014, we found two county employees manning each checkpoint and a deputy nearby. At one checkpoint, we saw a deputy actively working the metal detector; but at the others, a deputy was only observing. Our colleagues who regularly visit the courthouse told us the same: usually they see deputies merely observing, but occasionally actively working a checkpoint. For his part, Clarke told us the deputies are not posted at the checkpoints to watch the screeners. The deputies are there to provide an armed presence for the protection of the public and employees, and to prevent and deter an armed person from getting into the building, he said in an email. The cost Theres no dispute that overtime pay is being used, at least in part, to pay deputies to work security checkpoints at the courthouse complex. But the amount is not clear. Based on overtime reports the Sheriffs Office submits to county officials, its not possible to tell how much in overtime pay is being spent on deputies working security checkpoints at the courthouse complex, said county Auditor Jerome Heer. Overall, the sheriffs overtime expenditures have gone over budget. In 2013, the Sheriffs Office spent $5.9 million for overtime, exceeding the $3.6 million overtime budget, Heer said. As of June 23, 2014, he said, overtime expenditures were $2.7 million, which is on pace to exceed the overtime budget of $4.1 million. Our rating Chisholm said Clarke has deputies collecting overtime while sitting passively in chairs watching courthouse security personnel work. Theres no dispute that part of the sheriffs overtime budget pays deputies to work security checkpoints at the courthouse complex. The deputies typically are observing visitors passing through the checkpoints, but sometimes get actively involved in screening them or monitoring metal detectors. We rate Chisholms statement Mostly True. To comment, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwebsite. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has often used economic statistics to attack President Barack Obamas administration, and he did the same following the Democratic National Convention. American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream! We havent fact-checked Trump on this particular statistic before, so we took a look at the data. On the numbers The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate. Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out  the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago. As the graph shows, the rate grew steadily since 1995, reaching a 69 percent peak in 2005. But it has been in decline ever since. Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987. So Trumps data is accurate, but there are some caveats. Demographic trends Experts told us millennials are largely to blame for the dropping homeownership rate, but its as much their lifestyle preferences as it is a sign of a poor economy. Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents. At the same time, lifestyle choices  such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children  all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents. Many millennials have expressed little desire to own a home, said Byron Studdard, a financial adviser at Studdard Financial, which focuses on estate and retirement planning. Witnessing the financial crisis and their parents difficulties paying off their mortgages, as well as general desire to be mobile, serve as deterrents. Studdard also cautioned against comparisons to 1965, because that was a different generation that was more likely than millennials to view homeownership as the first step to prosperity. Im not sure the homeownership rate is necessarily going to be a good indicator of if America is great again, like it was when we had the World War II generation, Studdard explained. How big a problem is it? While the falling homeownership rate is not a positive, economists we spoke to disagreed on how problematic it was. In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters. He said the headship rate  the percent of adults heading a household  is a better figure that captures both owners and renters. Increases in the headship rate still stimulates household construction, he said. That rate, according to the Census Bureaus 2015 Current Population Survey, has been going up as of 2013. Slight decreases in owner-occupied households were outpaced by increases in renter households, said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia, a company providing real estate information for buyers and sellers. Yet renter-households still boost demand for construction and other goods, he said. The comparative benefits of renting versus owning a home are still disputed, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, an online real estate database company. On the other hand, DeSanctis said the low homeownership rate poses problems for the American economy. Owning a home has typically been a major source of investment for the middle class, and renting does not fulfill the same investment function. As a result, the country has become more unequal in recent years as rising home values have benefitted current homeowners greatly at a time more people are renting and facing escalating rental prices each year, he said. He said Trump has a point in identifying the troubles people have buying a home, especially as rising rental rates and housing prices surpass income gains. The biggest housing losses immediately after the recession affected middle-aged adults, Terrazas said. Our ruling Trump said homeownership is at its lowest since 1965. The numbers back him up. However, there are some caveats. Some of the decline is due to lifestyle, and not economic, changes. In addition, experts told us the housing market is not in as dire straits as one statistic suggests. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True. 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 2021, readers searched the Snopes website and sent emailed questions in regards to a false internet rumor that the Make-A-Wish Foundation, a non-profit organization that grants wishes to critically ill children, would only grant wishes to children who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The rumor was spread via a copypasta meme that circulated on social media. Here is an example of a misleading post on Facebook that went viral:   "This is literally a new low for humanity," the text of the above meme reads. "Terminally ill children will not be granted a wish.. from the make a wish foundation unless.. you guessed it.. theyre fully vaccinated." The source for this rumor is the misrepresentation of a video announcement posted on June 9, 2021, by Make-A-Wish, in which the organization's CEO, Richard Davis, announced that it was loosening some of the safety measures undertaken amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This included resuming, as of Sept. 15, 2021, the fulfillment of wishes that require air travel and large gatherings, in consultation with public health and medical professionals. video The resumption of these activities, for the time being, includes requiring those participating to be vaccinated against COVID-19. "All wish participants, including your wish kid and any siblings, will need to be two weeks past completion of either a one-dose or a two-dose vaccine," Davis stated. "While we won't ask for proof of vaccination, we'll ask that any adult participant to sign a letter of understanding that certifies that they and any minors participating in the wish are vaccinated and understand the risks of traveling at this time." Davis acknowledged that the situation isn't ideal. As of this writing, only children aged 12 years and older are eligible for the vaccine. eligible "We understand that this change affects many families whose children aren't eligible for the vaccine yet, and also know that there are families who aren't ready to get the vaccine, and we'll respect everyone's freedom of choice," Davis said in the video. Davis also said that the steps being taken "represent the start of our return to normal, and that because of the pandemic, international travel and cruises are still on hold. In other words, Davis said that in the midst of the pandemic, the foundation, which serves critically ill children, has been taking safety measures to protect those children. While that means some children won't be able to travel or participate in events or activities that involve crowds, that doesn't mean unvaccinated children won't be granted wishes. The Make-A-Wish Foundation published a statement countering viral rumors. The key portion of the statement reads: statement Make-A-Wish has not, does not and will not deny wishes to children who are not vaccinated. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Make-A-Wish has safely granted over 6,500 wishes to children and families  regardless of vaccination status. Make-A-Wish will continue to grant wishes to children who are not vaccinated. It is important to note that Make-A-Wish serves children with critical illnesses. Children do not need to have an end-of-life diagnosis to be eligible for a wish. In fact, most children we serve are able to manage, and even overcome, their illnesses and view the wish as an important part of the healing process. Spreading misinformation around the types of children who are eligible for a wish is harmful and hurtful to wish children and families. The vaccination policy does not apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis. Make-A-Wish will not require anyone to get vaccinated to get a wish. We respect everyone's freedom of choice. We understand that there are many families whose children aren't eligible for the vaccine yet, and we also know that there are families who are choosing not to get the vaccine. There are many other wish options for children who do not currently meet the requirements for air travel and events involving large gatherings. The list of wish possibilities is as expansive as a creative child's imagination, and it includes road trips to national parks, spending time with celebrities, outdoor playhouses, shopping sprees, staycations, wishes for pets, computers, and room redecorations. CDC. COVID-19 Vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html. COVID-19 Wish Updates: Air, Train, Bus Travel & Large Gatherings. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T8eCqsgzxs. Accessed 31 Aug. 2021. Make-A-Wish Counters Misinformation: Vaccine Policy. https://wish.org/news-releases/vaccine-policy. Accessed 31 Aug. 2021. PHOTOS STORED IN AN OLD BROWNIE CAMERA Thought you might find these photo's very interesting, what quality from 1941.Pearl Harbor Photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker.  THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O. INTERESTING, I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR.                    On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese empire launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By planning his attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States.)  In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack. Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa. The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets.  At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 "Kate" torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor Within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.When it was over, the U.S. losses were:  CasualtiesUSA : 218 KIA, 364 WIA..USN: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.USMC: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.-------------------------------------------------   BattleshipsUSS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss whe n a bomb hit her magazine.USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.-------------------------------------------------CruisersUSS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.USS San Francisco (CA38) - Light Damage.USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------DestroyersUSS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------MinelayerUSS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.-------------------------------------------------Seaplane TenderUSS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Repair ShipUSS Vestal (AR-4) - Sever ely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Harbor TugUSS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.) The images seen above are genuine photographs of the Japanese attack on American military forces at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on 7 December 1941, but not  as claimed in the accompanying text  all of them pictures taken by a sailor with a Brownie camera that remained undiscovered in a footlocker for many decades.   Brownie For a "sailor" to have snapped pictures from all the perspectives shown above, he would had to have been in the harbor aboard his ship, on the ground, and aloft in an airplane  all while the attack was in progress.  Moreover, the ship on which this wide-ranging sailor supposedly served, the first USS Quapaw, wasn't even built until well after the attack on Pearl Harbor. USS Quapaw Most (if not all) of these images are readily identifiable as archival U.S. Navy photos that have been available since the early 1940s and have appeared in countless articles and books about the Pearl Harbor attack. archival Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020.