Does a Meme Show the Faces of Suspected Mass Shooters in U.S. in 2019?
In the aftermath of two back-to-back mass shootings in the United States in early August 2019, much debate turned to the demographic dimensions of such massacres, with some commentary pointing the finger at white men, in particular.  In response to such observations, others pointed out the role of non-white assailants in gun violence in the U.S. One graphic in particular caught the attention of internet users.  The meme was first posted on Aug. 5 to the /pol/ ("Politically Incorrect") section of the website 4chan, which is notorious as a forum for far-right and white nationalist imagery, tropes and discussion threads. It was entitled "Mass Shooters 2019" and bore the sub-heading "Every person charged with or arrested for shooting 4+ people in a single incident." Underneath that was a collage of 98 portrait photographs, many of them prison mugshots. posted A large portion of the individuals shown in the collage appeared to be non-white, prompting its further promulgation on other online forums, including the website of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. The meme prompted much racist and white supremacist commentary.  Duke commentary   A note under the collage read: "146 Mas [sic] shootings so far this year are unsolved. Of these, 16 suspects have been identified as black or Latino and 0 white. The remaining cases have no suspect description issued. Also, of the 146 unsolved [mass] shootings so far, 21 are in Chicago, 8 are in Baltimore, 7 are in Washington DC, and 6 are in Philadelphia. All of this is according to my personal research which consisted of googling every single incident on the wikipedia page for mass shootings and reading local news articles about them. If I'm wrong about something give me the up-to-date information." This meme failed to take into account an essential piece of context in any discussion of mass shootings and those who perpetrate them: how you define a mass shooting.  Different definitions, different lists No fixed, uniformly accepted definition exists of a mass shooting, as we have explained in the past: explained Historically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined what they call active shooter incidents as those that result in four or more people (not including the attacker) being shot dead in public through actions not related to terrorism, gang activity, or the commission of other crimes (such as robbery). Since 2013, the FBI has dropped that numerical threshold to incidents involving the deaths of three or more people. defined three Everytown for Gun Control, a pro-gun-control non-profit that collects data on shootings, also defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are killed (not including the shooter) but includes shootings taking place in private homes, a circumstance the FBI omits from their methodology. defines Mother Jones magazine, in their mass shootings database, defines such shootings as indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. database Stanford Universitys now-defunct Mass Shootings in America project defined a mass shooting as one in which three or more people were shot (but not necessarily killed), excluding the attacker. Stanfords definition excluded gang-, drug-, or organized crime-related shootings. defined The Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced project, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot, including the attacker. defines Of the major sources of data about mass shootings, the Gun Violence Archive has a relatively inclusive definition: If four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not [including] the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold. This includes shootings in private places, incidents involving gang activity and armed robbery, shootouts, and non-fatal shootings. definition The August 2019 meme stated that its inclusion criteria were incidents in which four or more people were shot in a single incident. It did not specify any other criteria, such as whether the total number shot could include the perpetrator, whether it included incidents that took place in private dwellings, whether it included terrorism or gang-related shootings, and so on.  However, the meme also said it had derived its list of incidents from those included in the Wikipedia entry for "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019." It's clear that that list did include some gang-related shootings, some which took place in a private dwelling, and several incidents in which multiple people were shot but nobody died.  entry Our relatively brief overview of the alleged shooters included in the August 2019 meme indicates that it was broadly fairly accurate. It contained a few errors, but was faithful overall to its own criteria.  The primary problem with the chart was that it was based on a relatively broad definition of "mass shooting" which, while valid in and of itself, should not be confused with the much more narrow definition implicitly at work in many conversations about "mass shootings"  that is, incidents in which an attacker with no links to terrorism, criminal gangs, or organized crime goes out into a public area and fatally shoots multiple people. From a law enforcement and criminological point of view, defining a "mass shooting" in this relatively narrow way helps to establish clear parameters in terms of the nature and causes of such attacks, as well as the motivations of the attackers and any patterns in the identities of their victims. By contrast, gang-related shootings, for example, even if they cross a numerical threshold for victims, have relatively well-studied and straightforward causes and motivations, as well as a much more familiar victimology. Hence, agencies such as the FBI deliberately exclude them from their study of, and operations against, "active shooter incidents." However, to some observers, especially those primarily focused on the role of guns in violent deaths in the U.S., it is of secondary importance whether a mass shooting was related to a drug feud or a white supremacist act of terrorism. What matters most to these observers is the role of a firearm in causing the deaths of multiple people in one incident. Another example of this is the Mass Shooting Tracker's (relatively rare) insistence on including the death of a perpetrator among the total number of deaths in a mass shooting. The website's reasoning is simple but powerful: "We include the shooter's death because suicide matters ..." insistence Therefore, how you define a "mass shooting" can often depend on which underlying phenomenon or aspect of a mass shooting is of primary interest to you, and that definition can have a significant effect on the list of incidents on which your analysis focuses.  How you define a mass shooting also indirectly has a bearing on the demographic make-up of victims and perpetrators. For example, we know that criminal gangs in the United States are disproportionately made up of Latino and African American members. Including gang-related shootings in your definition of mass shootings will, therefore, increase the proportion of such perpetrators and victims in your count. That should not be surprising or controversial.  made up In fact, the full list of mass shootings (according to the broad definition used in the August 2019 meme), is likely to skew even more towards non-white perpetrators than the meme itself shows. This is because, as we explained in our examination of 2018 statistics for mass shootings, unsolved shootings often remain unsolved due to the dynamics inherent in gang conflict.  2018 statistics If an analysis of gun violence and mass shootings is being done in good faith, that demographic breakdown will be an inadvertent byproduct of the decision to include gang violence in one's definition. However, readers should also be on the lookout for those with a racist or white supremacist agenda deliberately tailoring the definition of a mass shooting so as to yield a list of perpetrators with a higher quotient of non-white individuals.  So what are the demographics of perpetrators of mass shootings, if we examine only the more narrow definitions of that term  the elusive phenomenon whereby an assailant without any ties to gangs, terrorism or organized crime, picks up a firearm and shoots multiple people in a public setting? The most extensive and robust database of gun violence in the U.S. is arguably the Gun Violence Archive. We have used entries from that database and applied the FBI's definition of "active shooter incident" in order to check the demographic make-up of the perpetrators of these much more narrowly defined attacks. The FBI defines an "active shooter incident" (akin to a mass shooting) as an incident in which a perpetrator shoots dead three or more people (not including the perpetrator) in a single incident in a public place, which is unrelated to terrorism, gangs, and doesn't take place in the course of some other criminal activity (like a robbery or fight).  defines By this definition, the Gun Violence Archive showed there were six such alleged incidents between Jan. 1 and Aug. 5, 2019: Aug. 4 Betts Aug. 3 shot dead Crusius July 28 described claimed May 31 shot dead DeWayne Craddock Feb. 15 shot dead Jan. 23 shot dead Xaver All six suspects were men, three were white, two were African-American, and the precise racial and ethnic identity of the sixth suspect was not clear.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Were None of 154 Mass Shootings in 2018 Committed by a Black Man, Illegal Alien, or Woman?"
 Snopes.com. 15 July 2018. National Gang Center. "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis -- Demographics."
 Accessed 6 August 2019. Seewer, John; Sewell, Dan; Minchillo, John. "Vigil Honors Victims as Authorities Eye Ohio Shooter's Life."
 The Associated Press. 5 August 2019. Galvan, Astrid; Lee, Morgan; Weber, Paul J. "El Paso Deaths Climb to 22 as Mayor Prepares for Trump's Visit."
 The Associated Press. 5 August 2019. Vives, Ruben et al. "What We Know About the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Suspect."
 The Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2019. Finley, Ben. "12 People Killed in Virginia Beach Shooting; Suspect Dead."
 The Associated Press. 1 June 2019. Coutu, Peter and Alissa Skelton. "Virginia Beach Killer Matched the Cliche: Quite, Polite, Unassuming."
 The Virginian-Pilot. 5 June 2019. Holcombe, Madeline. "Aurora Gunman Opened Fire on His Coworkers as Soon as he Lost His Job."
 CNN. 18 February 2019. Hauser, Christine. "Death Penalty Sought for Man Charged With Killing 5 in a Florida Bank Shooting."
 The New York Times. 8 February 2019. Updated [8 August 2019]: Added clarification that Santino William Legan's manner of death was suicide.
Claim:  List demonstrates the concept of "a billion." Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2003] A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases:  A billion seconds ago it was 1959.  A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.  A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it. Origins:  We   don't know the specific origins of this piece illustrating the enormousness represented by the number one billion, but it's reasonably accurate as far as the arithmetic goes.  We collected the example quoted above and first published this article back in 2003, and rather than updating this page annually, we've chosen to keep our comments relative to that year. We have to start out by noting that the definition of "billion" is not standardized.  In some places and usages, a billion is a one followed by nine zeros, or one thousand million; in other cases, a billion is a one followed by twelve zeros, or one million million.  In the U.S., the common usage of "billion" refers to a one followed by nine zeros (or 1,000,000,000), so that's the standard we employ here. billion  A billion seconds: One billion seconds is about 31.7 years, so going back in time a billion seconds would put us in 1972.  (The discrepancy in the version cited above, which puts the year at 1959, might have come about because the example we collected was compiled or last updated in 1990.)  A billion minutes:  One billion minutes is approximately 1901 years, so travelling back to a time one billion minutes ago would land us in the year A.D. 102.  This date is about seventy years too late to encompass the life of Jesus according to traditional accounts. (The discrepancy of several decades might be the result of someone's faulty arithmetic or historical knowledge, or it could be an indication that this piece originated back in the 1930s.)  A billion hours:  One billion hours ago represents a time a bit over 114,000 years in the past, an era generally classified as the Lower Paleolithic era, or the "Old Stone Age."  A billion days ago: Some versions of this piece include the line "A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet."  A billion days is approximately 2.74 million years; the era defined by that time period is generally estimated to be about when the first species of the genus Homo appeared in Africa, having diverged from the Australopithecines. Homo  A billion dollars ago:  If the U.S. federal government were spending a billion dollars every 8 hours and 20 minutes, its total yearly expenditure would be a little more than $1 trillion.  In the last few years, the budgets approved by Congress have been about double that amount, or $2 trillion per year. After Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in August 2005, someone politicized the "billions" piece by adding the following coda to it: Some interesting statistics While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans  It'samazing what you can learn with some simple division ... Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean? Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every  man,  woman, child), you each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787 Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012. Are all your calculators broken in Washington, D.C.? Maybe all of us should just flood their houses, then we can all be on the "big easy" street for the rest of our lives, and forget about working, and paying taxes and all that useless stuff! In September 2005, the two U.S. Senators from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu (a Democrat) and David Vitter (a Republican), jointly introduced the Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act in Congress, a bill that sought a total of $250 billion in federal funds to provide long-term relief and assistance to the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.  Of course, the legislation didn't propose that the entire amount be spent on New Orleans alone, or that the money literally be distributed to New Orleans  residents  the point of the coda was to provide some perspective on how much $250 billion is by presenting it relative to the number of people in the area hardest hit by the hurricane. Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act In any case, the arithmetic is a little bit off.  Assuming the population and home figures provided to be correct, dividing $250 billion equally among all New Orleans residents would mean:   Each person would receive $515,810.   The money/home ratio would be $1,328,014.   A family of four would take in an aggregate total of $2,063,240. Last updated:  22 April 2008    Sources:   Grunwald, Michael and Susan B. Glasser.  "Louisiana Goes After Federal Billions."   The Washington Post.  26 September 2005  (p. A1). FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law. Next to jobs and the economy, public employee pensions have been among the biggest issues in many 2014 political campaigns. Ernest Almonte, an independent running for general treasurer, was asked during an interview that aired Oct. 5, 2014 on the second half of WLNE's On the Record whether the 2011 overhaul of Rhode Islands state pension system went far enough. First of all, Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago, warning elected officials that if you didn't take care of this problem, it would take draconian measures to fix it. As a matter of fact, he said, it got to the point of saying that, 'If you're not going to fix this, you should start, (instead of) sending your children and grandchildren birthday cards and Christmas cards, you should just send them invoices and just tell them the truth: You're passing on your debt to them,' So something had to be done. We wondered whether Almonte, who served as Rhode Island's Auditor General from 1994 to 2010, was prescient enough to be warning about problems with Rhode Islands public pension systems 17 years ago, and what kinds of reforms he was saying were needed. Almontes campaign sent us several documents from the auditor general's office. Only a few go back to late 1990s and the relevant ones dealt with pension payment problems in individual communities, not state employees. One was a 1998 letter to Coventry's treasurer saying that some of the town's pension plans have insufficient assets to meet projected benefits. That was 16 years ago. Another was a 1998 copy of a report by the Johnston Financial Review Commission, which Almonte chaired, warning that the town owed $3.2 million in required pension contributions for its employees. For example, Johnston hadn't paid into the firemen's pension fund for more than three years, putting it more than $1.3 million behind in its payments. We note that Almonte's comments in both of these reports are in dry auditor language. Some readers might not take that as the type of scary warning that Almonte says he made. But we also found a May 8, 1988 front-page Providence Journal story reporting how Almonte explained to more than 200 Johnston residents that their town was in deep financial trouble. To drive home the severity of the situation, the story said, Almonte gave examples that sometimes made the audience wince: A bottom-of-the-barrel credit rating. A time between April 1996 and March 1997 when the town's bank account was overdrawn for 146 days. Falling behind $3.19 million in required pension contributions for workers. And that's not all, Almonte said. Still to be reckoned with is an unfunded pension liability that hasn't been quantified, and could add up to untold millions, the story reported. Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments. The state withheld school aid and traffic fine payments to six municipalities until they paid up. That was 15 years ago. If Almonte wasn't warning about a looming crisis in the state pension system in those days, that's because there wasn't one. His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years. The ratio for state employees, for example, went from 73 percent in 1993 to 81 percent in 1998. In addition, all the plans had been getting the recommended amount of funding since at least 1996 and, in many cases, even longer. That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode. We found no documentation from that era suggesting Almonte was advocating thetype ofsweeping changes to the separate pension plans for state employees and teachers that were pushed by General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and approved by the General Assembly and Governor Lincoln Chafee. In an interview, Almonte argued that he was talking about the state's pension problem at the time  because late payments he was referring to were payments by cities and towns to the state-run Municipal Employees' Retirement System, also known as MERS, which is under the jurisdiction of the state treasurer. Reform is not just what you to do an employee or an employee's benefits, he said. I was advocating a reform of management to get the communities to make their payments on time, especially when the money being withheld by workers to help pay for pension benefits is being retained by the city or town. When payments are made late, you miss out on earnings, and that's the start of the problem because the problem compounds itself. Our ruling Ernest Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago. The comment was in the context of a question on the state's pension system. Its clear from documentation Almonte provided and information we found that Almonte was warning about problems years ago. But the documentation he could provide only dealt with problems in municipal plans, although some of those were in the MERS system run by the state. Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) On Nov. 29, 2020, a Facebook page purporting to represent Costco, a chain of membership-only warehouse stores, posted a message offering a free grocery box to anyone who shared and commented on their post. The message was purportedly written by Costco's CEO Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo): message My name is Craig Jelinekand I'm the CEO of Costco Inc. To celebrate our 35th Birthday, Every single person who shaes and comments in the next 24hrs will get one of these Christmas Food Box delivered straight to their door on Monday 30th November. Each Food box contains groceries worth of $250 and a $35 Costco voucher. Make sure you validate your entry. Limit 1 Food box per person.   This message was not posted on Costco's official page and it was not written by the company's CEO. This is a scam that was shared by an imposter Facebook page. A nearly identical version of this scam (with Aldi swapped in for Costco) was also shared on social media in November 2020.  Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message to Facebook alerting their customers about the scam: Facebook Hey ALDI fans! Looks like another Facebook scam is making its way around. We can confirm it is a scam and the page has no affiliation with ALDI. We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused!We have been working with Facebook since yesterday to get the page taken down, but we'd love your help! Please share this post to help us spread the word and always be sure to look for the blue check mark by our name for authenticity! One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not.  Costco   Social media users could have also clicked the "Page Transparency" button on Facebook to unearth some more details about this fake page. In this case, the page transparency button reveals that the scam "Costco US" page was created on Nov. 29, the same day that this "free grocery box" scam started to circulate. It would be unusual, to say the least, for Costco to start an entirely new page (one that its shoppers do not know about) in order to host a giveaway.    A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not on the up-and-up. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally show boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image (below) shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo in order to make it seem like the store was truly giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image: several years old similar scam   The best way to tell that this offer is a scam, however, is to ask yourself a simple question: Does it seem too good to be true?  This type of scam is commonplace on social media. A fraudulent page (in this case a fake Costco page) posts an especially appealing offer (free grocery boxes) and then asks social media users to like, share, or comment on the post. This ensures that the scam message will spread to as many people as possible, which gives the fraudsters a better chance of success. "Success," in this case, is people being tricked into parting with personal information, such as email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers A phenomenon know as "like-farming" refers to unscrupulous online activity in which fraudsters post salacious material in order to generate as many likes, shares, and comments as possible. As the popularity of these posts and pages grows, so do the opportunities to scam social media users. For instance, a fraudster may edit a post to include a malware link or request personal information  or, if the audience has grown large enough, change the page's focus entirely and start selling spammy products.  In January 2020, the popular grocery chain Aldi was used in one such scam. A fraudulent post from a page resembling the official Aldi USA Facebook page promised everyone who shared or commented on it the chance to win a year's worth of free groceries: This post did not originate with the official Aldi Facebook page, and the grocery chain is not giving away a year of free groceries to any Facebook fans who like, comment, or share this post.   For starters, the post does not appear on the official Aldi USA Facebook page, nor on any of the store's other social media pages. We also checked the grocery chain's website for any mention of a grocery giveaway, but this too-good-to-be-true deal is not listed among Aldi's specials.  official Aldi USA Facebook page social media Aldi's specials Lastly, this fraudulent Facebook post follows the same script of dozens of other like-farming scams: It makes a big promise (a year of free groceries) in order to entice readers, then makes a simple request (to comment or share) to ensure that this post reaches a larger audience. The post is also light on specifics (11 pm in what time zone? And what Sunday?) and originated on a page unaffiliated with the grocery chain.  Here's how the Better Business Bureau described like-farming scams: What Exactly is Like-Farming? Like-farming on Facebook is a technique in which scammers create an eye-catching post designed to get many likes and shares. Posts often give people emotional reasons to click, like, and share, such as adorable animals, sick children, or political messages. For example, some posts claim that Facebook will donate money for every comment or share. As more people like and share the post, it appears in more news feeds, giving the post a much wider audience. Why Do Scammers Farm for Likes? As with many scams, like-farming has several different aims. When scammers ask you to register in order to win a free iPad or a free flight, this is a way to steal your personal information. Other versions can be more complex. Often, the post itself is initially harmless  albeit completely fictional. But when the scammer collects enough likes and shares, they will edit the post and add something malicious. Thats often a link to a website that downloads malware to your machine. Other times, once scammers reach their target number of likes, they strip the pages original content and use it to promote spammy products. They may also resell the page on the black market. These buyers can use it to spam followers or harvest the information Facebook provides. This is not the first time that Aldi has been used for this type of scam. In 2015 (and again in 2019), a scam post offering free Aldi coupons was circulated on social media.  free Aldi coupons We reached out to Aldi for more details and will update this article if more information becomes available.  Better Business Bureau.  "Like-Farming: A Facebook Scam Still Going Strong."   27 February 2018. Claim:  Macy's is giving out $200 gift cards to users who follow three simple steps on Facebook.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014]Macy's has a giveaway of $200 on Facebook.  Is it legitimate?   Origins:  In November 2014 a popular survey scam targeting Facebook users and major retailers emerged with a new variation, this time promising a $200 Macy's gift card for users who completed three short steps after clicking a link on the social network. The $200 Macy's gift card link was  virtually identical to prior scams dangling the lure of $200  Costco gift card, $100 Kohl's gift cards, and $200 Kroger  gift cards. Costco Kohl's Kroger In all the scams, users were redirected to a page which appeared to be both legitimately branded by the named retailer and nearly identical to Facebook's pop-up "like and share" functionality. However, the prompts were phony, associated with neither Facebook nor the referenced big-name retailers. On 10 November 2014, the official Macy's Facebook page was deluged with queries about this purported giveaway. The brand's social media managers responded, confirming the Macy's $200 gift card offer was fake and all legitimate contests were run through Macy's official page: Macy's Currently, we are not running any giveaways. Any official Macy's contests are shared by us, through our official Facebook page and other social channels. Thank you again for asking! -Chris at Macy's As noted in an earlier Facebook scam giveaway post, the Better Business Bureau offered three tips to avoid similar scams on social networks: three 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. The bulk of big giveaways from stores such as Macy's are conducted through the brand's official social media channels and rarely require users to provide personal information. Chances are if you've been redirected off an official Facebook page for any given brand, the giveaway claim is not on the up and up. Last updated:  10 November 2014 Claim:  A man was ordered to pay $30,000 in support for a child that DNA testing proved was not his. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] We need justice for Carnell Alexander  just one victim of paternity fraud in MI.   Origins:  In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was  ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.  The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of  aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:  The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.  Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.  An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother. By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance: WXYZ [The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father. "That was the only way I could get assistance," she said. She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child. "Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said. It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help. He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.  Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right. Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his. The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved. "Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander. The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise: The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexanders dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons. "I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander. Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story  he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services: article But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case? Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.  Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance. According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support. The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.  This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That  aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge  not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).    Last updated:  29 January 2015 Claim:  Photographs show businesses that posted "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" signs. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  Skewering a political candidate with an apropos comment is a time-honored way of making a point. Of late, we're seeing this tradition expand into the online world of blogs and message boards but also into the offline world via signage on businesses. The sign pictured above was displayed outside the Mandeville, Louisiana, office of State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg.  The sign actually bore different legends on each side, one side displaying the "chicken" message shown above and the other side referencing an apocryphal quote attributed to Senator Obama about his hoping to change "the greatest nation in the history of the world": change  A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg's office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm's policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns. Both signs are reminiscent of the KFC offering lampooning Senator Hillary Clinton. KFC offering However, although this particular insurance vendor posted the "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" billboard, he most certainly wasn't the first to get off this zinger. That withering assessment has been leveled at numerous U.S. and Canadian politicians over the years: [Moseley, October 2004] If you are on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, a baby-boomer, unemployed, a minority, parent with school-aged children, a college student, without medical insurance, balancing your personal budget, not a CEO, purchasing gasoline, wanting clean air and water, a 401-K owner or earn less than $200,000 per year, then voting for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Carville, January 2003] The previous highest-ranking black official was Mr. JC Watts from Oklahoma. Do you know what his own father said? A black person voting for a Republican would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Charleston Daily Mail, October 1996] Any hardworking person who votes Republican is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Rogers, March 1996] When workers voted for Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario, 1995-2002], it was like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.  [United Press International, October 1984] A working man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Waters, November 1982] For all that, Brinkley got off the evening's snappiest line: "Auto workers voting for Republicans this year are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Feinstein, October 1982] [Michael] Barnes told the gathering of about 150 union leaders and members that "for a working man or woman in this country to vote Republican in 1982 would be a like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Sheppard, October 1978] Mr. [Steven] Langdon [NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre riding] told an audience that for Ottawa Centre to vote Tory [Progressive Conservative] is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. One of Bud Gregg's messages inspired a realtor in Texas to post the same sentiment on a sign outside his business:  Bob Costilow, the owner of Bob Costilow Realtors in Nederland, Texas, said he was appalled by the capital gains tax portion of Senator Obama's tax plan. "I saw it (i.e., the "chicken" saying) in an e-mail on a sign put up by a State Farm agent in Mandeville, Louisiana," he said. "I loved it. I have gotten some calls about it, and some of them were even congratulatory in nature." Barbara "inspiration point" Mikkelson Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. verified Last updated:  10 April 2009    Feinstein, John.  "Mondale Is Democrats' Heavy Artillery in Md."   The Washington Post.  20 October 1982  (p. A20).    Ferraro, Thomas.  "Washington News."   United Press International.  11 October 1984.    Hayes, Greg.  "Realtor's Expression of Political Opinion Doesn't Set Well with Passerby."   Beaumont Enterprise.  17 July 2008.    Heathcock, Jennifer.  "Political Message Strikes Chord with Some Southeast Texans."   KFDM-TV [Beaumont, TX].  23 July 2008.    Kotz, Pete.  "The Enemy Within."   Cleveland Scene.  3 March 2004.    Moseley, Don.  "Letter: Vote for Colonel Sanders."   Farmington Daily Times.  26 October 2004  (p. A9).    Rogers, Linda.  "Stop Tearing Each Other Down."   The Toronto Star.  8 March 1996  (p. A20).    Sheppard, Robert.  "Anti-Liberal Feelings Haunt Mackasey."   The Globe and Mail.  7 October 1978.    Waters, Harry.  "Winning the Viewers' Votes."   Newsweek.  15 November 1982  (p. 55).    Charleston Daily Mail.  "Readers' Vent Line."   11 October 1996  (p. D5). One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020.