Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as outlined in President Biden's proposal?
Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal.
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 Scientists are still uncertain whether a person who has contracted the COVID-19 coronavirus disease can catch it again. However, according to an item circulated via social media ("Corona is so bad, this guy died twice!"), one person has apparently not only caught, but actually died of COVID-19 twice: uncertain   According to the two separate news accounts pictured above, a retired Milwaukee police lieutenant and a University of Memphis professor, identified with identical photographs, seemingly both died in March 2020 from the COVID-19 coronavirus. However, the news reports of the COVID-19 victim seen above employed different headlines to refer to the same person, Lenard Wells, who was both a former police officer and an instructor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis: same person Lenard Wells instructor [Wells] spent 27 years on the Milwaukee Police Department, where he worked tirelessly to bring racial equity to the ranks as president of the League of Martin, an association for African American officers. During his tenure, the League of Martin sued to make sure promotions and assignments were fair. "He wanted African American law enforcement officers to have the same rights and opportunities that were afforded to other officers," Assistant Milwaukee Police Chief Regina Howard said. After his police retirement, then-Gov. Jim Doyle appointed Wells chairman of the Wisconsin Parole Commission. In recent years, Wells taught criminal justice at the University of Memphis. Lenard retired from the Milwaukee Police Department after 27 years of service as a Lieutenant of Police. After retiring from the Milwaukee Police Department, he was appointed by Governor Jim Doye of Wisconsin to Chair the Wisconsin Parole Board. Forster, Victoria.  "Can You Get Sick with Coronavirus Twice? The Jury Is Still Out."
  Forbes.  8 April 2020. Luthern, Ashley.  "'A Law Enforcement Pioneer': Lenard Wells, Who Died of Coronavirus Complications, Leaves Lasting Legacy."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  23 March 2020. In August 2015, a survey scam promising customers $100 off "Back to School" coupons for the Meijer hypermarket chain began circulating online:  The $100 Meijer coupon scam was very similar to other schemes aimed at defrauding the customers of Target, Publix, Kroger, and Home Depot, all of which redirect users to a web site where they are asked to like, share, and/or comment on the coupons, ensuring that the scams get passed around social media: Target Publix Kroger Home Depot While each of these scams feature slight variations, they typically redirect users to survey sites where they are asked to provide personal information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and credit card numbers. The Better Business Bureau offers these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: tips Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. On 24 August 2015, Meijer confirmed that this $100 coupon was a scam: confirmed President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued over the treatment of the middle class, small businesses and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked debate on a different point -- the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas.So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a huge stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year.During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies get when they move jobs overseas.When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.Romney responded, The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.In this fact-check, we'll examine the presidents statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations.In the narrowest sense possible, Romneys rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether its from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad, said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions, Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation.But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS.Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseasWhen an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes.That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country, said McGill. And responsible for its own taxes. Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent companys tax return.The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred.The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S.McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, picked apart the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits.Tax break #2: Selling to yourselfAn American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. Its perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google.In just one quarter, the owner of the worlds most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the companys foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reportedBloomberg News.Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital wizardry to an Irish subsidiary which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings based in Bermuda where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda.These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arms length. Harvey, the former Pricewaterhouse Coopers partner, said they are anything but.It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions, Harvey said. I believe that anyone who believes the IRS can effectively enforce the arms-length standard is an eternal optimist  or delusional.Tallying the costHarvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion to $60 billion a year.Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment.Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said.But the picture is more complicated than that might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and being closer to important markets around the globe.However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivans words, a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow.Our rulingPresident Obama said there are loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms can not. The value of these is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative.We rate the statement True. Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  An Ohio Walmart store has begun selling halal meat. : Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Is Walmart going to start selling sharia compliant meat?   Origins:  On 12 November 2014, Miami (Ohio) University's student newspaper, The Miami Student, published an article about a local Walmart's decision to add a halal meat section to their grocery aisles: article Upon the request of Muslim students at Miami University, Walmart recently made the decision to provide halal-certified meat at the Oxford location. Store manager Elijah Woodard made a formal announcement on Oct. 21 that the store would be accommodating these requests.  "I appreciated the students bringing this interest to our attention," Woodard said. "I am pleased to announce that we have set a halal meat section in the store." Visiting assistant professor Tareq Hasan Khan and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) had petitioned all local grocers to carry Halal meat. So far, the local Walmart is the only store to have obliged to the request:  Between Khan and members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), efforts were made to convince Walmart to provide the Halal meat. Many students reached out directly to the management at Walmart. In addition, a petition was passed around on the Internet. The petition acquired nearly 50 signatures and was directed at all Oxford grocers including MOON co-op and Kroger. Thus far, Walmart is the only provider who has responded to the requests of the Muslim students. "For halal meat, we needed to drive from Oxford to Cincinnati, around 40 miles one way, almost every week," Khan said. "This long drive is very tiresome and takes about two hours only to go to Cincinnati and return back." This case is not the first instance of a Walmart store's choosing to carry Halal meat: Similar products have been sold at dozens of Walmart stores around the U.S. since at least 2010.  Still, the announcement that the Oxford location had added a halal meat section stirred up anger on social media sites: Walmart social media    While some people viewed Walmart's decision to sell halal meat as proof the company was "bowing down" to Sharia law, the Associated Press noted demand for halal products has been on the rise throughout the world: The worldwide market for Islamically permitted goods, called halal, has grown to more than half a billion dollars annually. Ritually slaughtered meat is a mainstay, but the halal industry is much broader, including foods and seasoning that omit alcohol, pork products and other forbidden ingredients, along with cosmetics, finance and clothing. Corporations have been courting immigrant Muslim communities in Europe for several years. Nestle, for example, has about 20 factories in Europe with halal-certified production lines and advertises to Western Muslims through its marketing campaign called "Taste of Home." Nestle plans to increase its ethnic and halal offerings in Europe in coming years. In the United States, iconic American companies such as McDonald's (which already has a popular halal menu overseas) and Wal-Mart have entered the halal arena.   Although Walmart has opted to offer halal meat in their Oxford store, it appears it is making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than instituting a country-wide policy to that effect.   Last updated:  19 February 2015    Zoll, Rachel.   "US Muslims: A New Consumer Niche."   Business Week.  27 December 2010. Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 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 As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013: testified Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery. [Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean "he's in authority and ... he has power over me." She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, "I believed everything he said.... I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said." Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted. This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had "reversed the lower court's decision to award" money to the victim: Martin v. Milwaukee County   As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading. Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not "overturn" the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen's actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone  and not the county  was liable for paying those damages: scope of his employment Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen's employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them). But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment ... Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County's training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff's Office's mission. Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would "belong to" and "benefit" only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee's being "at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer" is a sine qua non of scope. Olson Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas. Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million  a fact the panel recognized: indemnified As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's understanding of the public policy behind [the state's indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs. Critics of Barrett's have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion: Cox v. Evansville Police Department Two on-duty police officers  one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville  sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rules common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply. Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties  duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault. Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officers employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority. Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court's ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer: reversed ruling Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period. Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court. The complaint claimed the county sheriffs department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails. A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive. But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a rogue guard who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law. In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision  with Barrett joining the majority  the court vacated the three-judge panel's opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter's abuse of female inmates: vacated Darryl Christensens long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jurys verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensens horrific acts but rather the countys own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted  a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J., U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full courts majority. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all, Scudder said. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer. Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years, Brennan said. Diedrich, John.  "Woman Describes Rapes by Milwaukee County Jail Guard and Giving Birth While Shackled."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  5 June 2017. Diedrich, John.  "Jury Awards $6.7M to Inmate Raped by Guard in Milwaukee County Jail, Shackled During Childbirth."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  7 June 2017. Bailey, Lorraine.  "Full Seventh Circuit Finds Wisconsin County Liable in Prison Rape Case."
  Courthouse News Service.  15 May 2020. Bailey, Lorraine.  "Full Seventh Circuit Hears Debate Over Municipal Liability in Prison Rape."
  Courthouse News Service.  5 December 2019. After the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021, Snopes readers asked about the legitimacy of a viral document that left-leaning websites framed as an attempt by a member of former President Donald Trump's cabinet to suppress the ability of National Guard forces to provide law enforcement during the gathering of Trump supporters rallying to try to overturn the 2020 election. left-leaning websites 2020 election For example, the Daily Kos, a self-described online hub of progressive media and activism, reported on Jan. 29: online hub [On. Jan. 4], former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo to the secretary of the Army placing some extremely unusual limits on National Guard forces for that event. Its not a to-do list. Its a list of thou shalt nots. A long list. A list that says guard forces cant arrest any of the pro-Trump protesters, or search them, or even touch them. And thats just for starters. [...] Its clear that these restrictions would have absolutely prevented any guard forces from trying to protect any location. A website called "The National Memo" republished the body of the Daily Kos' story verbatim, under a new headline: "Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot." The National Memo Before we directly address the claim, let us unpack the basis of the above-mentioned articles. The Daily Kos' original story included a hyperlink to an authentic tweet by New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater on Jan. 28. tweet   The reporter's tweet included a digital image of what appeared to be a Jan. 4 memo to former Army secretary Ryan McCarthy and signed by Miller  whom Trump appointed as acting Pentagon chief in November 2020, just days after President Joe Biden was announced the winner of the election. Ryan McCarthy November 2020 was announced In early February, we reached out to Broadwater to learn where, how, or under what circumstances he obtained the document. He told us "it was a leak," or that an anonymous person or group within government or law-enforcement released the document to The New York Times. While no evidence exists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document displayed in the tweet, we sought to independently verify its authenticity. Citing the Freedom of Information Act, Snopes submitted multiple requests for a copy of the Jan. 4 record from various record-keeping centers within federal government. Freedom of Information Act On March 3, the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee fulfilled our request after its chair, Sen. Gary Peters, entered Miller's memo into the committee's public database of records. Committee spokespeople emailed us copies the document that indeed imposed restrictions on the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) during planned demonstrations by Trump supporters in the coming days. It read, in part: planned demonstrations Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is so employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel, and you will notify me immediately upon your authorization. The document written by the Trump appointee did not order any person or entity to take away weapons from Guard members. Rather, it required McCarthy, who oversees the DCNG, to request approval from the defense secretary in order for Guard members to use weapons, helmets, body armor or riot control agents  as well as to share equipment with other law-enforcement agencies  during the preplanned gatherings of Trump supporters on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. Rewind a few days, and, according to the Department of Defense, D.C. officials requested that the district's Metropolitan Police department  not a federal agency  lead security efforts during the pro-Trump events, which were widely marketed as gatherings of Trump supporters to try to send a message to Congress to halt a ceremonial vote affirming Biden's win. Department of Defense A Jan. 5 document signed by McCarthy and obtained by Snopes (displayed below) showed the Pentagon ultimately fulfilled that request, saying that its troops would provide support for the district police department or Capitol Hill Police, should they need it. Some 340 Guard members were planning to control crowds at metro stations and enforce street closures during the events, and a "Quick Reaction Force" comprised of 40 Guard officers was standing by, no matter what. "DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions," McCarthy's memo read. "In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self-defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army." https://www.scribd.com/document/497258792/Secretary-of-the-Army-Memorandum#fullscreen=1 That decision by the Department of Defense, as well as the request for autonomy from D.C. officials, followed the Guard's controversial response to protests against police violence following George Floyd's death in summer 2020. Politico reported: George Floyd's death reported: While some of the early protests did include looting and damages to local businesses, [D.C. Mayor Muriel] Bowser never called in the National Guard. Against the mayor's wishes, Trump ordered Guard personnel to the city, where the military faced backlash for using overly aggressive crowd control tactics against peaceful protesters, including flying helicopters low over the city to create rotor wash, an action used in overseas conflicts. Any time we would employ troops and guardsmen in the city, you had to go through a rigorous process. As you recall, there were events in the summer that got a lot of attention, and that was part of this," William J. Walker, the DCNG's commanding general, said in an interview with The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Walker was referring to the guidelines (like those in the Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 memos) that required the highest-level approval for the Guard to fully launch into law-enforcement mode. As a result of such restrictions, Walker told The Washington Post that when he received a panicked phone call from Capitol Hill Police about the extremists preparing to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 (which occurred around 1:50 p.m., per the defense department's timeline) he could not immediately deploy Guard members to help. He instead needed to wait for approval from McCarthy, who then waited for an answer from Miller. The Washington Post department's timeline At 3 p.m, Miller approved full activation of the DCNG (1,100 members) to help district and Capitol Hill police and directed those troops to secure the Capitol, the department's timeline showed. the department's timeline showed (See here for our fact check into a separate claim that the Department of Defense initially denied a request by D.C. officials to deploy the Guard.) here In sum, it was true that Miller issued a Jan. 4 memo requiring Guard leaders to seek prior approval before using weapons during the pro-Trump protests. However, it was an inaccurate portrayal of that order to claim that the Trump appointee "disarmed"  or took weapons away from  Guard members before the demonstrations, like The National Memo alleged. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of false and true information. This report was updated after Snopes obtained a copy of Miller's Jan. 4 memo. The update corroborated the New York Times reporter's tweet and added context about McCarthy's response to D.C. officials' request to lead law-enforcement efforts during the upcoming protests. On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted   survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented.