Did Levi Strauss Announce a Partnership with Michael Bloomberg to Advocate for Gun Control?
In September 2018, several conservative web sites and the National Rifle Association (NRA) reported that Levi Strauss & Co., producer of the iconic Levi's brand of jeans, had partnered with businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to "attack gun rights." The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) declared that Levi Strauss had left behind their "rugged image" and would be working with "a billionaire oligarch in an effort to empower the government to trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people." The conservative LifeZette website similarly wrote that: declared LifeZette The company plans to donate $1 million over four years through grants to anti-gun groups -- including the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-fronted group -- and will also encourage employee contributions through offering to double-match all the monies they throw toward the anti-gun campaign. On 5 September the NRA-ILA posted a meme on Facebook asserting that "Levi Strauss turns their back on Second Amendment supporting customers": meme   It's true that Levi Strauss did announce in September 2018 they would be partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit organization that advocates for gun control measures and was founded and is heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg. founded However, the accounts highlighted above included subjective (and sometimes misleading) characterizations of the company's efforts rather than objective facts. For example, Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh wrote that the company was "stepping up [their] support for gun violence prevention," not that they were working to "attack gun rights." The latter characterization came from LifeZette and the NRA, not Levi Strauss itself. wrote Similarly, the NRA's Facebook meme claimed that the company had "[turned] their back on Second Amendment supporting customers," but none of the actions announced in September 2018 related specifically to customers rather than to the issue of gun violence in general. (In 2016, the company requested that customers not bring firearms into their stores as a safety measure.) requested Finally, LifeZette wrote that Levi Strauss would be donating money towards "anti-Second Amendment activities," but that is not at all how the project was characterized by Levis Strauss themselves, whose CEO stipulated that he did not favor repealing the Second Amendment. In a blog post on 4 September 2018, Levi Strauss announced three actions in support of gun violence prevention: blog post 1. The Safer Tomorrow Fund: Weve established this fund to direct more than $1 million in philanthropic grants from LS&Co. over the next four years to fuel the work of nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence in America. 2. Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety: We are partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety and executives from the business community, including Michael Bloomberg, to form a coalition of business leaders who believe that business has a critical role to play and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country. 3. Employee Support: We are doubling our usual employee donation match to organizations aligned with our Safer Tomorrow Fund. Additionally, were encouraging employees to utilize their five hours a month in paid volunteer time to get more politically active. In an op-ed column for Fortune magazine, Bergh addressed the potential concerns of gun-owning customers and stressed that he was not advocating getting rid of the Second Amendment and did not believe gun owners were irresponsible: column You may wonder why a company that doesnt manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, its simple. Americans shouldnt have to live in fear of gun violence. Its an issue that affects all of us -- all generations and all walks of life. So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas. I know that Americans, including many of our own consumers, employees, and other partners, hold a wide spectrum of views related to guns. Im not here to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners arent responsible. In fact, as a former U.S. Army officer, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But as retired four-star general Michael Hayden once said, There are some weapons out there that frankly nobody should have access to. And actually, there are some people out there who should never have access to any weapons. We cant insulate ourselves from every threat. We cant harden every place we gather -- whether it be our schools, workplaces, shops, churches, or entertainment venues. But we can take common-sense, measurable steps -- like criminal background checks on all gun sales -- that will save lives. On the whole, the claims made by the NRA and certain conservative web sites about Levi Strauss & Co's newly-announced gun control activities were largely accurate and based on real announcements made by the company. However, these reports were colored, and at times distorted, by subjective characterizations and misleading descriptions of what Levi Strauss had actually announced. National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action.  "Levi's Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights."
  7 September 2018. LifeZette.  "Levi Strauss Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights."
  9 September 2018. Ho, Catherine.  "Inside the Bloomberg-Back Gun Control Group's Effort to Defeat the NRA."
  The Washington Post.  20 June 2016. Bergh, Chip.  "Levi Strauss CEO: Why Business Leaders Need to Take a Stand on Gun Violence."
  Fortune.  4 September 2018. Levi Strauss & Co.  "Ending the Gun Violence Epidemic in America."
  4 September 2018.
The Trump administration has cited China's trade relationship with North Korea as a key lever to deter the regime from producing a nuclear missile capable of striking the U.S. We must all do our share, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the U.N. Security Council April 28. But China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is therefore particularly important. Tillersons remarks, which included a call for fresheconomic sanctions, came at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea. As aU.S. Navy strike groupsteamed toward the Korean Peninsula -- where28,500 American troopsstationed in South Korea are on alert following thelatest provocationsfrom Pyongyang -- President Donald Trump on April 27warnedof a possible major conflict if diplomatic efforts fail. Weve previouslylooked atTrumps claim about the degree of control Beijing wields over Pyongyang. With Tillerson citing Chinese-North Korean trade relations as a vital diplomatic pressure point, we decided to explore how much China accounts for North Koreas overall trade with the outside world. Finding accurate data for the secretive regime is a bit tricky since no North Korean equivalent of Trade.gov with troves of trade data exists, as Pyongyang treats this information as a state secret. But so-called mirror statistics, an accounting of data reconstructed from other countries reports, offer a workaround, albeit a flawed one, since the statistics dont capture some transactions. The available data tell a story of growing dependence on Chinese trade over roughly the past two decades as economic sanctions levied by the UN and individual countries, as well as other factors, have seen North Koreas trade with other partners fall drastically. In 2000, China, South Korea and Japan each accounted for about a fifth of the regime's overall trade, with the rest of the world making up the remaining roughly two-fifths. Since then, Chinas slice of the pie has more than quadrupled, according to Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. As sanctions have reduced South Korean and Japanese trade basically to nothing, trade has naturally become focused more on China, Haggard said. The rest of the world has not picked up the slack. Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics agreed that Chinas current position as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is largely a function of Pyongyangs strained relations with its neighbor to the south -- but he noted this could change if political winds shift. The reason that the percentage is so high is that South Korea, which was North Koreas second largest trade partner, imposed sanctions and trade between the two countries is virtually nil, Noland said. If South Korea were to resume trade relations (as it might in the next administration) Chinas share of North Korean trade would fall, but China would still be the countrys principal trade partner. Bilateral disputes led to Tokyo imposing sanctions that went even further than UN restrictions, said Haggard, who noted that the commercial risk associated with North Korea and its poor record on honoring property rights have also dissuaded potential trade partners. As South Korean and Japanese trade with Pyongyang fell, Chinas economy boomed, fueling increased trade with North Korea -- a relationship unfettered by bilateral sanctions, as Beijing has traditionally viewed the regime as an ally. China has also been accused of being less compliant with UN sanctions than other countries. As a result of these factors, the consensus among experts we spoke to is that China now accounts for roughly 90 percent of North Korean trade. Source: Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. UNSCR refers to United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Yes, China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Koreas recorded trade, Noland said. They are the primary supplier of oil and the marginal supplier of grain. If China wanted to, it could bring North Korea to its knees. It has the economic leverage, but has been unwilling to use it, perhaps because it fears destabilizing the regime, he added. Our ruling Tillerson said, China account(s) for 90 percent of North Korean trade. Chinas role as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is a relatively new development. Since 2000, trade with the rest of the world has dropped off, as Chinese trade has risen. While the ratio is subject to change based on political factors, China now accounts for around 90 percent of North Korean trade. We rate Tillersons statement True. Fix Austin Schools, a group advocating voter approval of four bond propositions benefiting the Austin school district, slammed Gov. Rick Perrys education plan in a leaflet fielded by local voters in early May 2013.Under the word cut in capital letters, one side of the leaflet says: Under Rick Perry, Texas has CUT funding for public schools by 25%, a conclusion attributed to PolitiFact.Lynda Rife, a consultant to the group, told us the claim echoed our January 2013 review of Perrys statement to reporters at the time that Texas public school funding grew at three times the rate of enrollment from 2002 to 2012.In raw terms, there was a basis for Perrys claim. However, after adjusting for inflation and the effect of an annual tax swap put in motion by lawmakers and Perry in 2006, we concluded that Texas schools in 2012 were fielding 25 percent less in state aid than what they reaped in 2002. Perrys claim drew arating of False.At the time, we looked at enrollment changes and at both overall school spending, counting dollars from state, federal and local sources, and state education aid alone.EnrollmentEnrollment increased about 20 percent from 2001-02 to 2011-12, from more than 4.1 million to nearly 5 million students, according to a December 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. By email, agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us 2012-13 enrollment was expected to exceed 5 million, a figure subsequently confirmed, Ratcliffe told us recently by email.Overall spendingOverall school expenditures totaled $27.9 billion in 2002 and $44.2 billion in 2012, according to a chart from the Legislative Budget Board, which tracks fiscal issues for lawmakers.That makes for a difference of 58 percent, though thats also before adjusting for inflation, which the boards staff did by converting figures to 2004 dollars using an inflation adjuster devised by the federal government, the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government.In 2004 dollars, Texas public school spending in 2002 totaled $30.1 billion. In 2012, the total was $33.3 billion--11 percent greater than in 2002.By this measure, then, it looks like school enrollment went up faster than spending. Then again, we learned, these figures were not behind Perrys statement.State spending alonePerrys then-spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, told us by email that Perry was referring to the difference in state education spending alone as those are the funds the state has control over.The budget boards chart shows $10.9 billion in state spending on the schools in 2002 and $18.9 billion in 2012, for a 73 percent difference, or a little more than Perrys declared 70 percent.Adjusting for inflation, though, reduces the increase to 20 percent, which was still outpacing enrollment growth. In 2004 dollars, such spending was $14.2 billion in 2012, compared with $11.8 billion in 2002.Another crucial factorAnalyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities and school lobbyist Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency official, each pointed out another wrinkle, suggesting that any consideration of state education spending should take into account changes in law approved in 2006 resulting in the state picking up about $7 billion more in annual costs in return for school districts cutting local maintenance and operation property tax rates.Castro said by email: The property tax cut was $14.2 billion a biennium, or $7.1 billion every year. That means the state had to put in that amount of money a year to offset local property taxes falling by the same amount.The shift in funding sources did not, in itself, step up aid received by the schools, Castro said.Moak said by phone: This was simply a source-of-funds transfer.To adjust for the annual cost shift, we subtracted $7.1 billion from the state spending in 2012, suggesting a $0.9 billion difference from the 2002 spending. However, adjusting for inflation makes the 2012 state spending equal $8.2 billion in 2002 dollars--25 percent less than the $10.9 billion spent in 2002, which also would mean that spending trailed enrollment growth.For this article, finally, we weighed the message that the reduced spending was Perrys education plan. Perry was governor through all the spending decisions, but the reality is that Republican majorities of the 150-member House and 31-member Senate were needed to pass the decisions into law. Perry was key, but he didn't dictate actions. No governor can.Our rulingThe pro-bonds group said that under Perrys education plan, Texas has cut funding for public schools by 25 percent.State education spending in 2012 was 25 percent lower than it was in 2002, adjusting for inflation and the real effects of the 2006 law giving the state more responsibility for education revenues.Yet Perry didnt cause the reduction by himself; lawmakers acted, too. This clarification is missing from the groups statement, which we rate as Mostly True. On Jan. 14, 2023, media personality Megyn Kelly posted a meme to her Twitter account about Prince Harry and King Charles III that was originally created as a joke, but some onlookers appeared to take it seriously. posted Prince Harry and King Charles III  (Screenshot, @megynkelly Twitter page) The tweet contained an image of Harry and a fake quote about his father, Charles, supposedly from his memoir, "Spare," which published in January 2023. "When I was a child my father grabbed my nose then pulled away with his thumb between his fingers saying 'I've got you're [sic] nose' I thought I had been badly disfigured, the torment I suffered haunts me to this day," the fake quote says. Author Sherry Morris appeared to take the tweet at face value, and the meme appeared in Snopes' inbox of tips from readers for fact-checking: appeared to take the tweet Snopes' inbox of tips  "My dad did that. It was funny. I understood he didn't really have my nose. Good grief I hope his father didn't ask him to pull his finger," Morris tweeted. A couple of things point to the quote being fake and not having come from a published book, namely the misspelling of "your" and the bad punctuation. The image also contains a watermark that says "Belfast Mafia," which is a Facebook account that posts satirical and humorous memes. The account first shared the meme on Jan. 10. Facebook account shared the meme on Jan. 10 It wasn't the only meme of its kind by Belfast Mafia. Using the same image of Harry, the page made asimilarpiece of satirewith a fake quote about him supposedly being traumatized by his older brother William reaching behind him and tapping him on the shoulder. similar [See also on Snopes:Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?] Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal? Palma, Bethania. "Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?" Snopes, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-the-bbc-describe-prince-harrys-book-as-weirdest-book-written-by-a-royal/. "Prince Harry's Spare Becomes Fastest-Selling Non-Fiction Book Ever." Guinness World Records, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/1/prince-harrys-spare-becomes-fastest-selling-non-fiction-book-ever-732915. On July 5, 2021, the U.S. women's soccer team defeated Mexico 4-0 in their final match before the Olympic Games. While many cheered America's accomplishment, conservative commentators started to share a video along with the claim that the team had "disrespected" the 98-year-old World War II veteran, Pete DuPr, who performed the national anthem on his harmonica.  The controversy was a bit unclear from the start. Dinesh D'Souza, for instance, claimed that the players had turned their backs on the veteran during the performance. Richard Grenell, former acting director of U.S. national intelligence, claimed that they turned their back on the flag.  Dinesh D'Souza Richard Grenell,   Both of these messages (as well as the articles, videos, and additional tweets pushing this claim) mischaracterized the actions of the U.S. women's soccer team.  While the video (below) does appear to show some awkward positioning (some players were facing forward while some were facing to the side), this was not a protest or a gesture of disrespect against the flag or the veteran. When DuPr began his performance, some players opted to face him, while others turned to face an American flag at the end of the stadium.  When you watch the video below, pay attention to the direction the audience members were facing behind DuPr . Many of them were angled away from the harmonica-playing veteran and toward a flag at the end of the stadium. This is the same direction that the players were facing. As the flag is a bit difficult to see in the video (since it is only shown at the far-end of the field), here's a photograph from sports reporter Jeff Kassouf that shows the location of the flag for reference: photograph from sports reporter Jeff Kassouf  Here's a video of DuPr's performance of the National Anthem from ESPN:  Many of the people claiming that the U.S. team "disrespected" this veteran or the flag noted that the Mexican team was facing forward. It's worth noting that the members of Mexico's soccer team were facing their flag (in the same direction as the U.S. players) when the national anthem of Mexico was played.     The claim that the U.S. Soccer team disrespected this veteran is also contradicted by the fact that the players signed a ball for DuPr after his performance. Meghan Rapinoe, for example, who can be seen in the video facing toward the flag, not DuPr, can be glimpsed in this video signing a ball for the veteran:   Some U.S. soccer players, such as midfielder Cari Lloyd, have also disputed this claim on social media:  The U.S. soccer team also posted a statement on Twitter:  The claim that the U.S. women's soccer team was protesting during veteran DuPr's National Anthem performance is not true. The players did not turn away from this veteran. They turned toward the U.S. flag. In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice:   The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know. In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent  a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True. A somewhat disturbing image of an unknown animal's feet has been circulating online for several years, alongside a variety of claims about its origins. In March 2018, the photograph was re-purposed and shared as if the creature whose prints it captured had been spotted recently on a game trail in Cleburne County, Alabama: photograph   We have not been able to identify the source of this photograph. However, the claims made in recent Facebook posts about it are false: This picture was not taken in March 2018, and the animal it captured traces of (if any) did not destroy a trail camera or kill an Alabama farmer's livestock. This image has been online since at least as far back as October 2015, when it was shared on Instagram along with a story about a sailor in Oman who was "shocked" to find the image on his camera. This photograph has also been used to illustrate similar stories about a strange creature that was supposedly found in India, Brazil, andHawaii. Needless to say, we're skeptical that this exact same photograph was pulled from cameras in so many different locations and times. Instagram India Brazil Hawaii So what does this picture actually show? While this image is frequently claimed to depict evidence of a lobisomem, South America's version of a werewolf, we're fairly certain that this is a dog (or another extant species) suffering from mange: "Mange (demodicosis) is an inflammatory disease in dogs caused by various types of the Demodex mite. When the number of mites inhabiting the hair follicles and skin of the dog become exorbitant, it can lead to skin lesions, genetic disorders, problems with the immune system and hair loss (alopecia)." mange In fact, the paws in this viral photograph closely resemble a 2014 photograph taken by the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham, UK, of a dog suffering from a severe case of sarcoptic mange: photograph 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 October 2020, shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tested positive for COVID-19, a rumor started circulating on social media that the White House gift shop was selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin:   WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin. However, this website is not the official gift shop of the White House, the government does not dictate what this business sells, and the Trump administration does not make a profit from its sales.  WhiteHouseGiftShop.com This isn't the first time this misleadingly named gift shop has caused confusion online. In April 2020, a similar rumor went viral after social media users claimed that the United States government was selling "Coronavirus Task Force" coins at its gift shop. Again, while the coins were real, the website selling them was not officially affiliated with the government. The website's owner, Anthony Giannini, told us at the time that the White House Gift Shop "is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations." While this website does not have any current ties to the government, it does have a long (and somewhat convoluted) history that can reportedly be traced back to the 1950s when U.S. President Truman set up a gift shop in the basement of the White House: While it traces its history to a 1950 authorization by President Harry Truman, the headquarters of the White House Gift Shop has been in Lititz since 2012. Its operated by Lititz (Pennsylvania) resident Anthony Giannini with his wife, Helen. Its very weird and very cool, Giannini says of the shops curious history and its current location. After a failed assassination attempt of Truman in 1950 left one member of White House Police dead, Truman authorized a fund to benefit the family of the slain officer and the others who were injured in the attack by two Puerto Rican nationalists. When the White House Police became the Secret Service, the Truman-authorized fund became the Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund. The fund was replenished from the sale of items from a gift shop originally set up in the basement of the White House but eventually relocated to the nearby executive mansion. While Giannini was granted a trademark to use the name "White House Gift Shop," this business has not been officially affiliated with the government since at least 2012.  Umble, Chad.  "From 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Warwick Center: How the White House Gift Shop wound up in Lititz."
  Lancaster Online.  27 May 2019. Claim:  You can direct money to hunger relief simply by clicking a button on a web site. Origins:  Over the last few years we've seen a plethora of altruistic appeals circulate on the Internet, each one claiming that you could donate money to a worthy cause or right some terrible injustice  at no cost to you  merely by taking some simple action, such as forwarding an e-mail message.  (See our Jessica Mydek page for one example.)  All of these messages were hoaxes  until The Hunger Site came  Jessica Mydek along. At The Hunger Site, you can "donate" money to hunger relief simply by clicking a button.  How?  The Hunger Site, the creation of  John Breen, a 42-year-old computer programmer from Bloomington, Indiana, was funded by various companies who sponsored the site for a day.   Every sponsor donated the approximate cost of 1/4 of a cup of food to the United Nations' World Food Program for each user who clicks on the site during the day.  (If multiple companies were sponsoring the site, the amount of food donated was multiplied by the number of sponsors.) The Hunger Site Breen created the site in June 1999 as a personal project to help deal with hunger in developing countries, and the response was soon so overwhelming that he spent most of his time administering the site even though he received no income, loans, grants, or donations to compensate him for his time and effort or pay his expenses.  Eventually The Hunger Site became part of GreaterGood.com, a shopping portal where customers could direct up to 15% of the cost of every purchase to causes they selected.  GreaterGood.com ceased operations in July 2001, and The Hunger Site was temporarily shut down until CharityUSA.com took over its operations a few weeks later.  Other sites also offer similar means for visitors to aid various charities: CharityUSA.com  Animal Rescue Site Animal Rescue Site  The Breast Cancer Site The Breast Cancer Site Additional information:        About the Hunger Site   (TheHungerSite.com)        The Hunger Site press release   (World Food Program)   Last updated:  Last updated:  29 August 2009    Rowe, Peter.  "Fighting Hunger with the Click of a Button."