Was there a fine imposed on Donald Trump for allegedly misappropriating funds designated for veterans?
In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019.
On Dec. 10, 2023, Instagram account @hamidreza.edalatnia posted a series of eight images. Each image contained a spiral pattern, taking shape in either the architecture, greenery, or surrounding landscapes. The images, particularly the first one, went viral with multiple accounts across Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook picking up the images, with or without credit to the original account. @hamidreza.edalatnia Instagram Twitter Facebook One such viral post (with 110,836 likes, as of this writing) published by Instagram account @national_archeology, was flooded with comments from users who claimed the images were AI-generated. "Please stop posting AI images, we want to learn about history here," one wrote. One such viral post @national_archeology  View this post on Instagram A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology) A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology)  The images were, in fact, AI-generated. The original account that posted the images captioned them: "'Re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern' | AI, Stable diffusion, Controlnet." When we reached out to the account for comment, the owner of the account responded: "Yes the series of the images called: re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern originally generated by me using AI stable diffusion."  View this post on Instagram A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia) A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia)  According to the biography section of this account, its owner graduated from Danish university Det Kongelige Akademi and is currently based in Hamburg, Germany. The account features many such AI-generated images, some depicting the geographic shape of Iran in different forms, as well as Iran's famous Azadi Tower in various renderings. Lastly, when the first image was run through AI-detection software Hive, the result was 99.6% likely to be AI-generated, as seen below.  (Image via Hive) We've previously reported on other AI-generated imagery, such as R. Kelly doing shows in prison and U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. R. Kelly doing shows in prison U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. ControlNet. https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/using-diffusers/controlnet. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Det Kongelige Akademi.Royal Danish Academy, 5 Aug. 2014, https://kglakademi.dk/det-kongelige-akademi. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/C2ZMXARrO7T/?img_index=1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fhamidreza.edalatnia%2F%3Fimg_index%3D1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Editor's note: Fact-checking whether Trump tweeted about 'Dow Joans' and presidents being shot out of a cannon? That's over here. here Between 10 and 11 October 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped 1,378 points in value. Along with significant losses in other market indices (such as the S&P 500), this decline prompted sober and informed analysis, but also partisan criticism of President Donald Trump, who has set a precedent of claiming credit for positive stock market trends.  analysis claiming credit Against that background, critics of the president shared what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet from 2012 in which Trump supposedly proclaimed, "If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately!" RETWEET AND LIKE TO SPREAD THIS OLD TRUMP TWEET! pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 11, 2018 October 11, 2018 Since the Dow Jones had indeed dropped by more than 1,000 points in two days (the argument went), President Trump, in accordance with his own pronouncement, ought to be removed from office, or even resign. This was advocated with great gusto on Twitter in the aftermath of the October 2018 loss: The Dow has dropped 1,377 points in the last two days. Oh @realDonaldTrump, your self from six years ago would like a word with you. Alternatively, you could save us all a lot of time and money and just resign immediately. pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR  Stephen Schwartz (@AtomicAnalyst) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 Sooo, @realDonaldTrump..... @realDonaldTrump For a 2-day trump slump of minus-1,300 to the Dow, by your "logic" you should be impeached immediately AND thrown in jail! #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD  BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 @realDonaldTrump impeach Trump .. Dow is down 1,300 points https://t.co/31MNdEkePB @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/31MNdEkePB  alex taye (@ChakluTaye) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 But there is no record of Trump having posted such a tweet on 6 November 2012, or on any other date. Since it's conceivable that he published it then deleted it, we can't reach a definitive conclusion as to whether or not it is genuine. However, there are good reasons to doubt its authenticity. no record Firstly, it is strikingly similar to another tweet which was revealed to have been a hoax in February 2018, after another massive loss for the Dow Jones. On that occasion, Shaun Usher -- who runs the popular "Letters of Note" blog -- admitted to having fabricated an "old Trump tweet" from 2015, in which the presidential candidate was supposed to have proclaimed:  hoax loss If the Dow Joans [sic] ever falls more than 1000 "points" in a Single Day the sitting president should be "loaded" into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!    Secondly, there is no record of the 2012 tweet existing before 11 October 2018. The earliest instance we could find was the purported screenshot posted on that date by Twitter user Travis Allen. Despite searching Twitter and online news archives from 2012 onward, we did not find a single reference to Trump advocating the impeachment of the U.S. president in the event of a significant stock market drop. Twitter Nobody made reference to such a tweet despite almost six years passing -- not even when the Dow Jones dropped 1,175 points on 5 February 2018.  Also, we could find no variances in screenshots of the purported tweet. Every instance shows the same number of retweets and likes, and the same set of thumbnail avatars. Additional screenshots displaying variations in the number of retweets and likes, and/or different avatars, would at least suggest that someone besides Travis Allen had taken note of the tweet and kept a record of it (although that, in itself, would not amount to definitive corroboration).  As it stands, the case for the tweet's authenticity rests entirely on a sole Twitter user (out of hundreds of millions) having taken a screenshot of it between 6 November 2012 and 11 October 2018, before it could have been deleted.  Finally, the person who posted the earliest known instance of the tweet has a history of posting anti-Trump "sharebait," a fact that casts even more reasonable doubt on its authenticity.  Allen's own 11 October tweet implores readers to "retweet and like to spread this old Trump tweet." This effort to garner shares and engagement is a common feature of his Twitter account. In the week leading up to the "Dow Jones" screenshot, Allen published nine tweets that included requests that readers share and like his content. For example:  Remember when Trump said he was going to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it? ??? RT and like if you remember!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 9, 2018 October 9, 2018 Many many people are saying that Brett Kavanaugh is the WORST SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE! Retweet and like if you agree!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018 The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two leading figures in the movement to end sexual violence as a weapon of war. Remember when #MAGA thought Trump was going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a picture with Kim Jong Un? ??? #MAGA RT if you remember! pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 5, 2018 October 5, 2018   A pattern of posting partisan sharebait does not prove that Allen's "Dow Jones" tweet was fake, but it justifies further skepticism about its authenticity.  We sent Allen a message asking him whether he fabricated the tweet, and, if not, whether he could provide the date on which he captured a screenshot of it, its URL, or an archive link to it. We did not receive a response.  Chang, Sue; Vlastelica, Ryan. "U.S. Stocks Close Lower as Dow Drops Nearly 1,400 Points in 2 Days."
 Marketwatch. 11 October 2018. Rampell, Catherine. "The Stock Market Under Trump vs. Obama."
 The Washington Post. 1 May 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did Trump Tweet That the President Should Be Shot Out of a Cannon If the Stock Market Tanked?"
 Snopes.com. 5 February 2018. Phipps, Claire; Wearden, Graeme; Fletcher, Nick. "Australian and Asian Stock Markets Slide After Dow Suffers Biggest One-Day Points Fall -- As It Happened."
 The Guardian. 6 February 2018. In thevideoannouncing his run for California governor, RepublicanTravis Allensaid he wants to reduce the states crime rate and its high taxes. We recently fact-checked Allens claims on crime in the video. The Orange County state assemblyman earned aMostly Falsefor his statement that crime is on the rise in all the states major metros. We found he cherry-picked data from an uptick in crime in 2015 and ignored the states decades-long decline in crime which continued in early 2016. Given the importance of taxes in California, we also decided to examine Allen's claims on this topic. Ive seen our taxes increase to be among the highest in the nation, Allen said in the campaignvideoon June 22, 2017. In California, we must get serious about cutting our taxes. Californians pay among the highest taxes in the entire nation. Allen makes his claim at about the 0:15 minute mark of the video above. Was Allen right? Are Californias taxes really among the highest in the nation? We set out on a fact check. Our research We decided to examine where California ranks in key tax categories, including income, sales and property taxes. Additionally, we looked at how California measures up in a more comprehensive category: Its overall state-local tax burden. We also spoke with several tax experts for some context on these rankings. They all said comparing tax rates is doable but messy, noting that states assess taxes in different ways. Allens campaign did not respond to our request for evidence to support his claim. Heres what we found in each key tax category: Income tax Californias top tier income tax rate is the highest in the nation at 13.3 percent, according to theTax FoundationandCalifornia Taxpayers Association. Its the rate paid by Californians who earn more than $1 million annually. Maine had the second highest top rate at 10.15 percent, followed by Oregons 9.9 percent, as of Jan. 1, 2017. Several states have no income tax, including Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida. Of course, only a fraction of Californians pay the top income tax rate, noted Annette Nellen, professor and director of the graduate tax program at San Jose State University. A recentSacramento Bee analysisof state tax data found 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent of the states 16 million total, reported income of more than $1 million in 2014. This is a very small percentage of the population, Nellen said. Not everybody is paying that. So, if someone was to say we have really high taxes in California, sometimes thats interpreted as everybodys paying a really high tax when in California we also have a fairly high exemption for individuals and children which might cause some lower-income folks to not pay any California income tax at all, at least not directly. Per capita, Californians pay $1,991 annually in state income taxes, which ranks fourth highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation. Sales tax While only a fraction pay the states top income tax rate, everyone who lives here or visits pays Californias highest-in-the-nation sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. Four states tie for the second-highest statewide sales tax rate, at 7 percent: Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, according to the Tax Foundation. States with no sales tax include Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and Delaware. When adding state and local sales taxes, California rank drops to 10th highest. This combined tax rate varies across the state. In some parts of Los Angeles County, for example, it tops 10 percent, said David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. The association researches tax data and opposes what it calls unnecessary taxes. Property tax Unlike Californias income and sales tax rates, the state's average effective property tax rate is among the lowest in the nation, at 0.72 percent, or 36th among states, according to the Tax Foundation. Thats due to voter approved Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases to no more than 2 percent per year. New Jersey had the highest property tax rate at more than 2.1 percent, according to a2016 reportby the Tax Foundation. Still, Kline said, property tax in California is compounded by additional taxes, such as parcel taxes and Mello-Roos assessments, or fees charged to property owners in a specific area to pay for public improvements such as streets and parks. Those can add hundreds or thousands of dollars every year, he added. Total tax burden In addition to ranking individual tax categories, the Tax Foundation produces a more comprehensive category it calls the State-Local Tax Burden. It measures the share of income in the state that goes to state and local taxes. California ranked sixth highest on this list at 11 percent. New Yorkers faced the highest burden at 12.7 percent, followed by Connecticut at 12.6 percent. Alaskans paid the smallest share of their income, 6.5 percent, in state and local taxes. We asked Joe Henchman, vice president of the Tax Foundation, about the accuracy of Allens claim that Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. I think its a fair comment to make, Henchman said. Unless youre being really specific about a particular type of tax, California is usually at the high end of the states. Its almost always in the top half of the states in terms of a tax or its burden or how much people pay. And its often in the Top 10. Exceptions do exist, he said, such as Californias low taxes on wine (44th highest), spirits (40th) and beer (28th), compared with other states. Nellen, the San Jose State University tax professor, agreed Californias taxes are generally high and said Allens claim is mostly backed up by the facts. Growth and taxes In recent years, top Democrats in California have deflected criticism about the states high taxes by pointing to strong employment and GDP growth. Gov. Jerry Brown, for example, has repeatedly pointed to themore than 2 million jobsCalifornia has created since he returned to office in 2011. Allen has criticized Browns recent signing of a 12 cent per gallon increase in the states gas tax. That move is expected to make Californias gas tax second highest in the nation, behind Pennsylvanias, once it goes into effect in Nov. 1, 2017. Henchman said, for now, Californias economy has succeeded despite its high taxes. Nobody moves to California because of taxes, he said. They move in spite of the taxes, because of other positive benefits. Theres good weather, theres Silicon Valley, theres great universities, theres Hollywood, etc., etc. Those, for a lot of people, make it worth paying the taxes, to a point, Henchman added. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor Travis Allen recently claimed Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. Allens statement is broad and needs clarification. But when looking at some of the most important tax categories, including income, sales and gasoline taxes, theres a lot of truth to his claim. California has the highest top tier income tax and the highest state sales tax in the nation. Its important to note that the top rate income tax is paid by only a fraction of households in the state, and that the sales tax rate drops to 10th in the nation when local and state sales taxes are examined state-by-state. Notably, it does not have one of the nations highest property tax rates, at 36th highest. Allens claim is accurate but needs this additional information. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. UPDATE:An earlier version of this fact check described California's property tax rate as 0.72 percent. We have clarified that this is the state's average effective property tax rate. Visit our Tracking the Truth serieshereto see all of our 2018 governor's race fact-checks. Governors race Allenis one of several Republican candidates to announce a run for California governor. The others include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and former state Assemblyman David Hadley of Manhattan Beach. Several prominent Democratsare also competing in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. They include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa, California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Supporters of a California ballot measure that would remove some of Proposition 13s tax protections say claims shared thousands of times on Facebook and other social media platforms have distorted their initiative. The campaign for theCalifornia Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, also known as the split-roll measure,is still gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It is backed by a group of union and social justice organizations. If approved by voters, the measure would hike taxes on factories, stores and other commercial and industrial real estate by requiring they pay property tax based on current market value rather than the value of the property when it was purchased. It would raise an estimated $7.5 billion to $12 billion annually, according to ananalysisby the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. The money would be distributed to schools and local governments. The proposed ballot measure, however, would not touch tax protections for homeowners. Yet many claims on social media suggest the initiative would repeal all parts of Prop. 13, stoking concerns that residential property taxes could spike. Heres one example posted on Facebook Dec. 31, 2019:  A similar Facebook postby Bakersfield Tuff, a media company focused on racing and rodeo, was shared more than 2,200 times. Others have appeared on the platforms Next Door and We Chat, according to the campaign for the initiative. Do these claims distort the truth? We set out on a fact check to find out. Background on Prop. 13 In 1978, voters approved Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up. It also tied tax rates to a propertys purchase price, rather than to the fluctuations of Californias real estate market, ensuring homeowners greater financial stability. The lawremains popularamong homeowners and business groups, who argue it allows neighborhoods to stay intact and older residents on fixed-incomes to remain in their homes rather than being forced out by high tax bills. Groups such asCalifornians to Stop Higher Property Taxeshave warned that removing Prop. 13s commercial tax protections will lead companies to pass along any increased tax burden to consumers. Critics of Prop. 13, on the other hand, say the law has cut too deeply into the foundation of tax revenue for local governments. Social Media Claims Completely False The campaign spearheading the November ballot measure contacted PolitiFact about the social media claims. They are completely false, said Alex Stack, spokesperson for theinitiative. It would completely protect and exempt all residential property, that means homeowners, renters and seniors. Thats backed up by the initiatives officialtitle and summaryprepared by the Attorney Generals office. That document says the measure exempts residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Becerra's Role The social media posts claimed Becerra was putting together plans to eliminate Prop. 13. Theres no evidence to substantiate that. Becerra and others attorneys general, however, have been criticized for drafting misleading ballot measure titles and summaries. For example,Becerra wasaccused of giving an earlier version of this measure a friendly write-up. But attorneys general do not initiate ballot measures. A spokesperson for Becerra declined to directly address the social media posts. Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, said the claim about Becerra planning to repeal Prop. 13 is clearly wrong and described the rest of the information as cleverly fuzzy. Its very intelligently written, he said of the posts, suggesting they may have originated with a political operative. Only one or two spots are wrong. A lot is political opinion. Theres no doubting the ballot measures significance, Hussey added. It would be a dramatic revision to Prop. 13. If passed, it would be by far the biggest change weve seen since voters approved the law, he said. Keith Smith is a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, where he studies elections and voting behavior. He agreed the claim about Becerra was technically wrong. But given that the initiative represents a big change to Prop. 13, some voters may see it as a gateway to repealing the measure altogether. Asked if social media posts were accurate, he replied: It depends on your perspective. Is [Prop. 13] going away? No, its not going away. Is [the ballot measure] proposing to do away with some aspect of Prop. 13 that currently exists? Yes. The claims published on Facebook and other sites, Smith explained, could be more convincing to voters than any details in the ballot measure. Earlier this month,ABC 10 Sacramento examined similar claimsand found theres no effort to eliminate Prop. 13. Adding to the confusion about the proposed November ballot measure, theres a voter initiative on Californias March primary ballot calledProposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond. But it has nothing to do with the landmark measure of the same name passed four decades ago. A spokesman for the California Secretary of States Office said that the numbers assigned to propositions are reused through the years, sometimes leading to duplicates. Our Ruling Social media posts claimed a November ballot measure would repeal Californias Prop. 13, and that Attorney General Becerra is putting together plans to eliminate the historic law. The proposed measure would undo Prop. 13s tax protections for commercial and industrial properties with a value over $3 million. It would be a major change to the law. But homeowners, small businesses and agricultural properties would not lose their Prop. 13 tax safeguards. Thats spelled out in the measures official statetitle and summary document. While Becerras office writes the legal titles and summaries for voter initiatives, the attorney general does not put forward ballot measures. Theres no evidence Becerra is trying to eliminate Prop. 13. In the end, the social media posts capture the real concern about potential changes to Prop. 13, but they also greatly misrepresent the specific changes the November ballot measure would make to it. We rate their claims about repealing Prop. 13 as False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Read more about Prop. 13, its history and efforts to change it in'The Block That Prop. 13 Built,' a collaboration between CapRadio, CALmattersand public radio stations across California. Email us at[email protected]with feedback or contact us onTwitterorFacebook. Also, were starting a new project calledAsk PolitiFact California.Is there something in California government or politics that we should fact-check next? Send us a question, and one of our reporters and fact-checkers might reach out to find the answer. Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically  Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with.  Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants  a population that CDC does not  recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants  recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain  Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year.  Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots.  Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier.  The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed  Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses.  This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease  whose cause is unknown  compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear  We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School.  "10 Flu Myths."
  November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Thimerosal in Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization.  "Statement on Thimerosal."
  July 2006. Dorea, J.G.  "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants."
  Current Medical Chemistry.  2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al.  "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease."
  CMAJ.  27 November 2001. Gorski, David.  "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'"
  Science Based Medicine.  7 September 2009. Casewatch.  "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D."
  20 April 2005. Pediatrics.  "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)."
  September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al.  Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies."
  Vaccine.  17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al.  An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines."
  Pediatrics.  May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al.  A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al.  Association Between Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccine and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  October 2003. The National Academies.  "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism."
  2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project.  "Vaccine Ingredients."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccines Adjuvants."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Guillain-Barre Syndrome."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al.  Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis."
  BMJ.  26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al.  Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al.  Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology."
  Pediatriia.  1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al.  The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flu Symptoms & Complications."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
  The Lancet.  January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Effectiveness  How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?"
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree.  Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?"
  The Atlantic.  10 February 2015. In May 2023, several American publications asserted that a "special village" for conservative Americans and Canadians was in development. Vice News described the potential village as a "MAGA colony." The New Republic reported that "Russian authorities" were apparently planning the creation of of "a special village outside Moscow dedicated to conservative-minded Americans and Canadians." described reported   (The New Republic) A Russian immigration lawyer named Timur Beslangurov, who owns the domain name movetorussia.ru, is responsible for the claim. He has provided no concrete evidence the project is happening, but he made the assertion at the 11th St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, an event in which "representatives of the Russian and foreign legal community, business, and government [...] discussed the role and place of law in the modern world." Legal Forum State-run Russian media outlet RIA Novosti, a sponsor of the forum, ran a story about his remarks on May 11, 2023. Beslangurov claimed that tens of thousands of people wanted to move to Russia and that the project would be (or had been) financed by future settlers of the village and was approved by a regional government (via Google translate): a story A village will be built in the Moscow region for Americans and Canadians who want to immigrate to Russia, said Timur Beslangurov, a partner at the law firm VISTA Immigration, which provides assistance in obtaining Russian documents. [...] According to Beslangurov, tens of thousands of people would like to move to Russia - foreigners without Russian roots. According to him, although the project is financed by future settlers, the approval of the regional government was required. The project, he claimed, would begin sometime in 2024. As reported by Novosti, these westerners want to move to to avoid the "radical values" of their home countries and return to their Christian roots (via Google translate): reported The reason is the inculcation of radical values: today they have 70 genders, it is not known what will happen next. Many normal people emigrate, including considering Russia, but are faced with huge bureaucratic problems of Russian migration legislation, the lawyer explained. According to him, among those wishing to move there are also traditional Catholics who very strongly believe in the prophecy that Russia will remain the only Christian country in the world. Outside of these lofty statements made at a Kremlin-backed legal conference, Beslangurov has not provided any evidence of the project's reality. In May 2023, he told Vice News he had no information to give them: told VICE News contacted Beslangurov asking for further information on the reported project, and to speak with some of the hundreds of potential Western immigrants he said existed to help verify his claims, but he replied that he wasnt able to provide further information at this stage. By email, Snopes asked Beslangurov if any progress had been made on the village and if plans to begin construction in 2024 were on track. "Yes, we are working to make this happen," he responded.  Beslangurov is not a "Russian authority," but a private lawyer who provides services for foreigners who wish to move to Russia. While he is evidently well connected, he is not an official voice of the Russian government. According to his Linkedin profile, he does "work closely with the federal agencies and the members and committees involved in the development of laws," however. profile Beslangurov's statements echo similar statements made by the Kremlin seemingly geared at western conservatives. The New Republic wrote that "Beslangurovs remarks [...] mirror the broader posturing of Russias government as traditional in comparison to the Wests supposed loose liberalism." wrote Beslangurov has regularly been cited on issues related to immigration to Russia and expatriate life in the international press. In 2022, he argued to the Daily Beast that "nothing good would happen" with western sanctions against Russia in response to their invasion of Ukraine and that the move would push Russia closer to China and India. In early 2023, his name appeared in an Indian outlet where he promoted a golden visa program aimed at recruiting Indian investors with offers of Russian residency. argued promoted Because no Russian "authority" is actively part of this project, and because the one person responsible for making the claim has thus far declined to provide evidence to support it, Snopes rates it Unproven. Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy. Russian Golden Visa: Russian Gov Aims to Lure Indian Investors with New Residency Program. The Economic Times, 29 Jan. 2023. The Economic Times - The Times of India, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/migrate/russian-golden-visa-russian-gov-lures-indian-investors-with-new-residency-program/articleshow/97419768.cms. Hume, Tim. Russia Wants to Build a MAGA Colony for US Conservatives, Lawyer Claims. Vice, 12 May 2023, https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwdew/russia-maga-colony. Kirsch, Noah. In Tears: Hollywoods Messy Breakup With Russias Weeping Elite. The Daily Beast, 3 Mar. 2022. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/celebrity-insider-bob-van-ronkel-on-hollywoods-messy-breakup-with-russias-oligarchs. Recap of the 11th St. Petersburg International Legal Forum. https://legalforum.info/en/news/itogi-xi-peterburgskogo-mezhdunarodnogo-juridicheskogo-foruma/. Accessed 19 Jan. 2024. Thakker, Prem, et al. Russia Wants to Build a Safe Space for Conservative Americans to Move To. The New Republic, 1 Nov. 2022. The New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/post/172710/russia-build-safe-space-conservative-americans-move. ,  .       .   , 20230511T1229, https://realty.ria.ru/20230511/derevnya-1871001155.html. Update [Jan. 20, 2024]: Added comment from Beslangurov. As a result of a decision last year by the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, students who are in the state illegally who graduate from Rhode Island high schools are eligible for the in-state tuition rate if they decide to go to a state college or university. The ruling sparked a furor among advocates of strict enforcement of immigration laws.Two bills --one that would reverse the boards decisionandone that would make the policy state law-- were the subject of an April 24, 2012, hearing before the House Committee on Finance.William T. Terry Gorman, executive director ofRhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, argued for reversing the regents policy, saying the state would be subsidizing a college education for people who aren't employable because they are in the country illegally.Please keep in mind that these students, when they're attending high school, they're illegal aliens. When they graduate, they're illegal aliens. When they enter college, they're illegal aliens. Because of that status, they're not allowed to get a job to help pay their way through college. They're not allowed to get a driver's license to drive back and forth to college. And when we've provided them that four years of in-state tuition, they're not allowed to get a job, Gorman said. They can't get a job at Textron, they can't get a job at CVS, they can't get a job at Gilbane, they can't get a job at Dunkin Donuts, and they can't get a job at Burger King because of their status. And we provided them with four years of a college education.He again emphasized that point later in the hearing: When these students graduate from college, they're still illegal aliens. They cannot get a job. How does that help the economy?One could argue that it's good to have the state's smartest students -- whether legal or illegal -- move into the Rhode Island work force.But will those undocumented college grads really end up unemployed anyway?We were particularly curious because three of the 12 states that have passed laws to provide in-state tuition for undocumented high school graduates -- California, New Mexico and Texas -- are places where the illegal immigration issue is particularly prominent, thanks to their borders with Mexico.Are those states doing something different, allowing companies to tap the best-educated, motivated undocumented residents?The answer is no, saidLaura Vazquez, a legislative analyst for theNational Council of La Raza, a Washington, D.C.-based Latino civil rights and advocacy organization. She said the situation is the same throughout the United States. When they graduate, we don't get the benefit of having this educated group of people who are eager and ready to contribute fully.They do find work. Some of them are working under the table under poor conditions. Some work for family. A number of students go to law school or enroll in Ph.D. programs, she said. But companies can't hire them because the government requires that all workers be checked for employment eligibility.Graduates could seek employment overseas, but a lot of these kids feel American through and through and want to practice their skills here, Vazquez said. And if they were to leave the country to take an overseas job they won't be allowed back in for a long time. Immigration law says, in general, if you've been in the United States illegally for more than one year after reaching age 18, once you leave the country you are banned from reentering for 10 years.In a few cases, undocumented people who have been scheduled for deportation have gotten a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security, which allows them to seek a work permit. But the DHS is very stingy with it, she said.Other immigration experts told us the same thing: Gorman is essentially correct.It is true that undocumented college graduates are legally barred from working. The only exception is in rare cases they have been able to obtain contract work provided there is no employer/employee relationship, said Kent Wong, director of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Los Angeles.Gorman sent us a link toa Huffington Post storyabout Iliana Guadalupe Perez, a mathematician and undocumented immigrant, who has writtena free online guidedetailing how undocumented college graduates can find work. Her advice was also to seek work as an independent contractor where proof of citizenship isn't required.When we asked Gorman what was going on in the border states, he suggested that graduates may be able to get jobs because enforcement was lax. He said a source in San Diego reported that immigration officials are not checking on hardly anything regarding illegal aliens here right now, least of all the status of recent college grads applying for jobs. She said the governor just authorized state scholarships for the illegal alien students.I also spoke with Jim Gilchrist from theMinuteman Projectand he echoed basically the same sentiments. He did say there has been more employer audits by ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] but not of the type that would be looking for illegal alien college grads, Gorman said in an e-mail. (The Minuteman Project pushes for stronger enforcement of immigration laws. )I also spoke with the Policy Director of The Center for Immigration Studies and she said she has never heard of any enforcement efforts in Texas or California regarding illegal alien college grads, said Gorman. The center is a research group that opposes illegal immigration and wants less legal immigration into the United States.However, given the strictness of the law, a special effort to focus on college graduates may not be necessary.Michael Olivas, director of the Institute of Higher Education Law & Governance at the University of Houston, said the why-give-them-a-tuition-break-when-they-can't-get-a-job argument is a diversion from the real problem: children brought to the United States, sometimes at a very young age, are left in this netherworld where they can neither work nor be licensed once they become adults.And when their inability to find work is used to try to prevent them from being eligible for the same in-state educational opportunities as their peers, its the worst kind of misdirection. It's hiding the larger issue, said Olivas, a proponent of the federal DREAM Act, which would give such students a path to citizenship.Our rulingTerry Gorman, during testimony on the question of whether to let Rhode Island's undocumented high school graduates take advantage of in-state tuition rates, said, When these students graduate from college, they're still illegal aliens. They cannot get a job.The experts we spoke with said he's generally correct, although they can, in a few cases, be hired as independent contractors.Over all, we rate the claim asTrue. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Possible presidential aspirant Scott Walker opens his newbookwith a dismal depiction of conditions in the nations capital. If you are like me, the view from Washington, D.C., these days is pretty grim, the Republican governor writes in Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge, which is due out Nov. 19, 2013. Barack Obama has been elected to a second term. Obamacare will not be repealed anytime soon. Congress has approved massive tax increases. Then Walker makes this claim: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Lets see how much the debt has grown and to what extent Obama is responsible. What is the debt? We hear plenty about the federal debt and annual federal budget deficits. So, lets make sure were on the same page before we dig in. Total federal debt, also known as gross debt, is the amount of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury and other federal agencies. It has two components: Debt held by the government is money the government owes itself. Mainly, the government borrows from trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare -- payments owed to beneficiaries in the future -- to fund current government operations. Debt held by the public is owed to investors outside the federal government, including individual and corporate investors in the United States and overseas, foreign governments, the Federal Reserve and other entities. It's money the government borrows when it runs annual budget deficits -- in other words, the money the government needs to bridge the gap between what it spends and what it takes in. How much is the debt? Jacquelynn Burke, a publicist for Sentinel, Walkers publisher, responded to our request to Walker for information to back his claim. She told us Walker was referring to total debt and to the portion held by the public and cited two documents from Obamas own administration, a2013 reportfrom the Council of Economic Advisers and Obamas2014 budget. Its helpful here to note that debt is tallied at the end of the fiscal year and that the federal fiscal year runs from October through September. So, fiscal 2008 started in October 2007 and ended in September 2008. The documents Walker relies on show total debt on pace to double -- from $9.99 trillion in fiscal 2008 to an estimated $20 trillion in fiscal 2016; and debt held by the public to more than double, from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion. (FactCheck.org also reports that debt held by the public ison pace to doubleduring Obamas presidency.) Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, cited the same documents Walker did when we asked him about Walkers claim. Edwards said that, even though fiscal 2008 ended more than three months before Obama was first inaugurated, it is a good starting point because most of the debt accumulated in fiscal 2009 was from Obamas stimulus plan. Joshua Gordon, policy director at the centristConcord Coalition, which advocates for fiscal responsibility, argued that a better starting point is the end of fiscal 2009 -- a year later than what Walker uses -- since Obama would have been in office for nearly nine months at that point. He also argued against examining total debt, saying that since it includes borrowing from Social Security, it doesn't really have any economic significance. Gordon cited figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for debt held by the public. They show that that portion of the total debt was $7.54 trillion at the end of fiscal 2009, but isnt projected to double until fiscal 2019, after Obama leaves office. Gordon and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the nonprofitCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan organization focused on debt reduction, also made another point on comparing debt levels over time. They told us measuring debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is better for comparison purposes than simply using raw dollars. According to Congressional Budget Office figures, debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product wont double during Obamas presidency. They show debt held by the public at the end of 2009 was equal to 52.3% of gross domestic product. Thats expected to reach 76.2% at the end of fiscal 2014, but then drop during the rest of Obamas presidency. At the same time, the federal debt is commonly reported in raw dollars, not as a percentage of GDP. So, at least in terms of raw dollars, there is evidence that debt is projected to double during Obamas time in office. Who's to blame Walker implied that Obama plays a role in how much the debt has grown, but he didnt say the president caused the increase. That squares with how weve evaluated similar claims in the past. For one thing, each president inherits the previous presidents budget, as well as the interest payments needed to pay off debts accumulated under previous presidents. Moreover, about two-thirds of the annual deficit during Obamas presidency term has been from entitlements and interest. Entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, are less susceptible to a presidents policy preferences than discretionary spending that Congress must approve on an annual basis. Entitlements are also more heavily driven by demographic factors, such as the aging of the population, which is also out of any presidents control. For its part, The White House didn't challenge Walker's claim, but cited documents indicating that annual deficits are becoming smaller. A couple of other points on responsibility for the debt before we close. Ananalysisby the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities acknowledged that deficits and debt have been sharply higher under Obama. But the analysis says the Great Recession, tax cuts adopted under President George W. Bush, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obamas watch. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, meanwhile, traces the the debt problem back even further, to around 1970, when the government decided to significantly increase spending without a corresponding increase in revenue. The problem cant be fixed, according to thatanalysis, without creating a mechanism to prevent the government from running persistent deficits in the future. Our rating Walker said: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Documents from Obamas own administration indicate the debt is on pace to double in raw dollars, the way the debt is commonly reported, though not as a percentage of gross domestic product. Walker aptly indicated that Obama bears part of the blame. We rate Walkers statement Mostly True. To comment on this item, please go toJSOnline.com. In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements.  Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker       A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis.  "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents."   WXYZ.  26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy.  "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam."   CBS News.  26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady.  "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa."   WTSP.  26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.  "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?"   18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Tracker."   Accessed 27 January 2017.