Has American Airlines received billions in federal aid and subsequently laid off 30,000 employees?
In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information.
Mark Twain (1835-1910), the author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer," remains one of the most celebrated American writers and humorists. He is certainly among the most quotable authors of all time, not to mention one of the most misquoted. For whatever reason, people like to attribute jokes and aphorisms to Twain that he never said or wrote. Mark Twain In early 2023 we were alerted to a meme that was circulating with a quote attributed to Twain on the subject of patriotism. It had been greeted with some skepticism online, in part because some people pointed out that the year given for the quote, 1935, was 34 years after Twain's death. When we investigated, however, we found that the quote itself is properly attributed to him, and 1935 was the date it was first published.  The passage is an excerpt from a section titled "Maxims in the Rough" from "Mark Twain's Notebook," a collection first published in 1935 by Harper & Brothers. Here is the full paragraph, plus the the three that immediately followed it, for context: Maxims in the Rough Mark Twain's Notebook In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice  and always has been. In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side. In the North, before the War, the man who opposed slavery was despised and ostracized, and insulted. By the "Patriots." Then, by and by, the "Patriots" went over to his side, and thenceforth his attitude became patriotism. There are two kinds of patriotism  monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the kind may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The Gospel of the Monarchical Patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Out country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we have  the individual right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he by himself) believes them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about the grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.  Source: Twain, Mark. "Mark Twain's Notebook." London, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/ItalTravLit/id/22396. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. On the third night of the Democratic convention, Vice President Joe Biden took vigorous exception to the Republican message of a nation teetering on the brink. Not only do we have the largest economy in the world, we have the strongest economy in the world, Biden said. We have the most productive workers in the world. And given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never ever ever let their country down. Does American have the most productive workers? Not quite. We checked the numbers and found that we rank third, not first. Productivity is a measure of how much value comes out of each hour worked. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks the performance of the worlds higher income nations. When the OECDcompares the GDP per hour workedacross 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States. This table shows the top six countries since 2010. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Luxembourg 78.4 78.2 76 78.4 79.3 81.2 Norway 77.8 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.9 79.7 United States 61.9 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.4 .. Belgium 61.8 61.6 61.4 61.7 62.2 .. Ireland 58.2 60.7 61 60.2 62 .. Netherlands 59.6 60.1 59.9 60.1 60.6 61.3  For 2014, the most recent year for which we have complete data, America ranks third, as it has since 2010. For each hour worked in Luxembourg, that country gains $79.30. In Norway, the amount is $78.90. In the United States, the value is $62.40. We reached out to Bidens press office and were told that when hes made this comparison before, he has referred to other larger economies, which means the United States ranks first. He left out that qualification this time. Our ruling Biden said that America has the most productive workers in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks how much value comes out of each hour worked in the worlds higher income nations. According to its data, Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than America. That ranking has been in place since 2010. Third is not first. But to place in the top three out of the worlds 47 most wealthy nations is still an achievement. Biden is wrong on the details, but the general point is correct. We rate this claim Mostly True. In mid-October 2018, singer-songwriter Michael Bubl defused speculation generated by a newspaper interview that he would be bringing his career to a close. Bubl took a two-year hiatus from recording in the wake of his firstborn son Noah's October 2016 cancer diagnosis.  During an interview published in the Daily Mail's weekend magazine on 13 October 2018 that touched on the end of that hiatus, Bubl explained his reasons for recording his forthcoming new album in the wake of his son's battle with cancer -- and seemingly announced his retirement from the music world in a story hyperbolically headlined ""Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview": published "One, because I felt a debt of gratitude, deeper than I can explain, to the millions of people all over the world who prayed for us and showed us compassion. That gave me faith in humanity.  "Two, because I love music and feel I can continue the legacy of my idols. And three, because if the world was ending -- not just my own personal hell but watching the political turmoil in America and watching Europe break up -- theres never a better time for music." Then suddenly he stops. "This is my last interview," he says quite solemnly. "I'm retiring from the business. I've made the perfect record and now I can leave at the very top." But a few days later a spokesperson for Bubl told NBC's Today Show that "He is NOT retiring. Definitely not." told Perhaps Bubl's comments about having given his "last interview" and "retiring from the business" were meant to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that was misunderstood or didn't come across in print, as Today suggested: Given Bubl's sense of humor, we detect a little sarcasm in his self-praise and retirement talk. At least that's the theory TODAY's Savannah Guthrie is subscribing to. "You know, he's a pretty funny guy," she said when the topic came up on the show. "Maybe he just saying (his new album) is so good, I retire!" The Canadian singer and songwriter himself also dismissed the Mail's report during a subsequent interview: dismissed After stepping back into the spotlight following a 2-year hiatus, it seemed like a strange time for Bubl to announce his departure. Fortunately, his rep calmed fans' fears, telling E! News in a statement that plans of his retirement are "not true at all." As further reassurance, the 43-year-old father of three put the speculation to rest in a new interview with SiriusXM's Fantasy Sports Radio. "Just consider the source -- that's all I say to people," he told co-hosts Mike Dempsey and Bob Harris. "My buddies wrote me. I said, 'Look at who said it.' C'mon, are you kidding me? I need the money. I'm not going anywhere." Bubl's new album, Love, is scheduled to be released on 16 November 2018.  Storey, Katie.  "Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview."
  Daily Mail.  13 October 2018. Hines, Ree.  "Michael Bubl Is 'Definitely Not' Retiring Following Son's Cancer Battle."
  The Today Show.  15 October 2018. Hautman, Nicholas.  "Michael Buble Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'I Need the Money.'"
  US Magazine.   16 October 2018. Schnurr, Samantha.  "Michael Bubl Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'Consider the Source.'"
  E! News.   16 October 2018. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its 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. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. 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." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. The perils of sharing photographs online manifested in a February 2018 hoax in which social media users shared an unidentified man's image along with the claim that he's a murderous taxi driver. The earliest iteration of the post, on 4 February 2018, emanated from a Facebook user in Nigeria, who posted:    The post was accompanied by a photograph of the alleged assailant:   Besides lacking much in the way of context, the photo can be found on at least two online dating sites, with divergent information: The man is identified as a resident of Casablanca on Wamba; but on JeContacte he's described as hailing from Cameroon. Wamba; JeContacte However, the web site The Zambian Observer claimed that he was Congolese in a post accusing him of committing several murders: post Zambia shares a border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in December 2017 a reported thousands of Congolese refugees made their way into Zambia to escape from violence in their own country. The article appears to be using the man as an anti-immigrant scapegoat and a way to attack a specific politician. reported Other iterations of the post placed the man in Freeport, Jamaica; Washington D.C.; Toledo, Ohio; and in New York City, where some social media users posted the picture and the original caption, adding the phrase "my friend from the DA'S office in Brooklyn just sent me this. Share it for your safety":   A spokesperson for the actual Brooklyn District Attorney's office told us that they "know nothing" about the person in the picture or the allegations. But as often happens around social media, users shared the claim while admitting that they had no idea whether they were helping the spread of misinformation:       But there has yet to be actual corroboration of any of the claims surrounding the unnamed man; police officials in both New York City and Washington D.C. told us that they had never heard of the post or any allegations about a "murder cab." The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles said that "2465RB" did not match any license plate attached to a taxi or any other sort of vehicle. And a spokesperson for the Toledo Police Department told us, "We have looked into this and it is not credible." We also contacted police in Zambia seeking comment, but had not heard back as of time of publication. The fact that the claim spans several continents and countries suggest that this is a false rumor, as does the Zambian Observer's claim that the man was doing "ritual killings." If this man were murdering people in Brooklyn (or Toledo, or Washington D.C., or Freeport et al), and if law enforcement had his photograph, it would have been reported in major U.S. newspapers, police would know about it, and official government sources would have published warnings.  Schlein, Lisa. "Thousands of Congolese Fleeing into Zambia to Escape Violence in DRC."
Voice of America. 3 December 2017. Added reponse from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.  Added response from the Toledo Police Department. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. 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 the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020. A month after launching his long-shot bid for the White House, a 73-year-old senator from Vermont appeared in Madison before perhaps the largest gathering for any candidate to that point in the 2016 campaign. Bernie Sanderscalled fora political revolution against greed and took jabs at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a contender on the GOP side of the field. Cheering him on was an Alliant Energy Center crowd that his aides estimated atnearly10,000people. At one point during his hourlongspeechon July 1, 2015, Sanders said: The issue of wealth and income inequality, to my mind, is the great moral issue of our time. It is the great economic issue of our time and it is the great political issue of our time. Let me be as clear as I can be: There is something profoundly wrong when today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Wealth inequality is sure to be an issue Sanders emphasizes as he challenges Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. So, does the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent? Previous claims Two of our most-clicked fact checks have found significant gaps in wealth in the United States. Filmmaker Michael Moore -- also speaking in Madison, during the height of protests against Walker over his collective bargaining reforms in 2011 -- said 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Our rating wasTrue. As of 2010, the net worth of the Forbes 400 -- $1.37 trillion -- exceeded that of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households. We alsorated Truea2013statement by the liberal One Wisconsin Now advocacy group, which said the wealth of the Wal-Mart Walton family equalled the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. The wealth of Sam Waltons heirs, we found, was $89.5 billion -- equal to the bottom 42 percent of American families. A note about those fact checks, in terms of helping explain the wealth gap: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. Some people would still have a pretty healthy bottom line, but still have a negative net worth. Meanwhile, so far in 2015, PolitiFact National has given Sanders aMostly Truefor saying income equality in the U.S. is the widest since the 1920s; and aMostly Truefor saying 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Now to his new claim, which is about wealth, rather than income. Sanders evidence To back Sanders statement, his Senate office cited anews articlefrom The Guardian newspaper. The headline on the article, which reported on awealth inequality studyreleased in October 2014, matched Sanders claim nearly word for word. The study was done for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisanorganizationin Cambridge, Mass. It is perhaps best known as the arbiter for determining whether the U.S. economy isin recession. The authors of the study were economistsEmmanuel Saezof the University of California, Berkeley, andGabriel Zucmanof the London School of Economics. Using tax records, they made estimates for 2012 on wealth -- that is, the value of all assets, such as a home, and savings and retirement accounts, minus all debts, such as mortgages and credit card balances. The major finding, in terms of Sanders claim: The top 0.1 percent was composed of 160,000 families with average wealth of $72.8 million. All told, they owned 22 percent of the nations wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent -- 144 million families with average wealth of $84,000 -- owned only 22.8 percent of the wealth. In other words, the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent of U.S. households own virtually the same share of all the nation's wealth. Wealth is getting more concentrated in the United States, the researchers observed, but this phenomenon largely owes to the spectacular dynamics of fortunes of dozens and hundreds of million dollars, and much less to the growth in fortunes of a few million dollars. Inequality within rich families is increasing. Two other prominent economists --Thomas Pikettyof the Paris School of Economics andEdward Wolffof New York University -- told us that the study makes solid estimates about wealth inequality. Wolff said he was not aware of another study that examined the wealth of the top 0.1 percent. But some fault the findings to some degree. Another view Richard Burkhauser, a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University, told us that Saez and Zucman are very well respected economists, but that he has a major complaint about their study: it excludes Social Security. To ignore it as they do grossly understates the wealth held by Americans in the bottom 99 percent of the population,  Burkhauser said. Another criticism is the study that it doesn't take into account changes in tax laws. Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointed us to an article one of his colleagues wrote in the Wall Street Journal. It said, for example, that changes in tax laws in the 1980s and 90s skew any increase in wealth inequality by requiring more capital income of high-income taxpayers be reported on individual returns, while excluding most capital income of middle-income savers and homeowners. Mitchell told us: Even if one makes the heroic assumption that the data is completely accurate, our friends on the left take these numbers and want people to believe that the wealth of the top 1 percent (or top 10 percent, or top .01 percent, etc) comes at the expense of the rest of us. This is generally nonsense. People such as Bill Gates become rich because they generate real value for others. There is no fixed pie. Our rating Sanders said the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. His claim repeats a finding from a study by two internationally known economists that were supported by two other major economists we contacted. But the study has been criticized, for example, for not including Social Security in the wealth calculations. For a claim that is accurate but needs additional information, a rating is Mostly True. In July 2017, a number of right-leaning news and opinion web sites simultaneously reposted a six-month-old online editorial piece implying that former United States President Barack Obama believes the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his eight years of service in the White House. piece The reposted article is striking on various counts, not least for the fact that nowhere in it is President Obama quoted as saying such a thing. The false attribution has nevertheless been used as the headline in virtually every instance of the article's aggregation, as exemplified in these blurbs found on Facebook:   published Conservative Daily Post Discerning readers will note that in lieu of a substantive critique, the author chose to further stoke the already existing anti-Obama sentiment of his audience by piling on epithets such as "delusional," "stinks of entitlement," and "blatantly disrespectful": Obama: The Country Deserves [sic] Me A Debt Of Gratitude For My Leadership During Barack Obamas final press conference Friday afternoon, he spent a majority of the time patting himself on the back. Obama told a room full of reporters that after eight years of his presidency, the United States is stronger, in better shape, and more respected across the world than ever before. Almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago. Compiling a list of reasons why Barack Obama is a terrible president seems like a project for a book rather than a column, but I am sure many of you agree that Obama will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. We dont even need to choose one failure of his  the list of catastrophic failures will forever place the United States in a bad position. Our allies no long trust or respect us while our enemies no long fear us. Obama is right, he did accomplish all of that on his own. Its clear that hes been a disaster for America on a scale that few other presidents can match. Just look at his record. Whats worse, his blatantly disrespectful attitude stinks of entitlement a [sic] delusional thinking; Obama literally thinks we owe him something for his leadership. How does it make you feel to read that he thinks he will go down as one of the greatest presidents in our history? Most tellingly, the author's claim that Obama "literally thinks we owe him something" was conjured out of thin air. If the President had said or even implied any such thing, there is no evidence of it in the article, much less in the transcript of the December 2016 press conference. transcript So, what's to be gained by fabricating such a statement and attributing it to the former president? We can think of at least two motivations: politics and money (though not necessarily in that order). Some people, clearly, are ideologically motivated to share this kind of propaganda. For example, witness this true believer who converted the text into a YouTube video: video  But others, such as the Serbia-based owner(s) of The Breaking News Today, and the Macedonia-based owners of USA Breaking News, Morning News, and Infowars Today (to cite just a few examples of foreign-owned web sites promulgating the Obama story), were likely in it for the advertising revenues. Serbia The Breaking News Today Macedonia based owners USA Breaking News Morning News Infowars Today The town of Veles, Macedonia, in particular, was known to be a hotbed of young pro-Trump fake news producers, according to a 15 February 2017 feature in Wired, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy grinding out propaganda for U.S. consumption: feature In the final weeks of the U.S. presidential election, Veles attained a weird infamy in the most powerful nation on earth; stories in The Guardian and on BuzzFeed revealed that the Macedonian town of 55,000 was the registered home of at least 100 pro-Trump websites, many of them filled with sensationalist, utterly fake news. (The imminent criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton was a popular theme; another was the popes approval of Trump.) The sites ample traffic was rewarded handsomely by automated advertising engines, like Googles AdSense. An article in The New Yorker described how President Barack Obama himself spent a day in the final week of the campaign talking almost obsessively about Veles and its digital gold rush. Within Veles itself, the young entrepreneurs behind these websites became subjects of tantalizing intrigue. Between August and November, Boris [the pseudonym of one of such entrepreneur] earned nearly $16,000 off his two pro-Trump websites. The average monthly salary in Macedonia is $371. One might suppose that Trump's electoral victory would have been bad for business, but the U.S. market for pro-Trump fake news -- even months-old pro-Trump fake news -- is still booming, probably due to the constant storm of controversy surrounding his administration. A sharp uptick in interest in the Obama "debt of gratitude" article leading to its aggregation by more pro-Trump sites occurred during a week in which it was announced that Donald Trump, Jr. had held a previously undisclosed meeting with a highly placed Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign, GOP legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare appeared to be tanking, and the president's approval rating fell to 36 percent. Coincidence? Possibly, but we suspect not. Clement, Scott and Balz, Dan.  "Poll Finds Trump's Standing Weakened Since Springtime."
 The Washington Post.  16 July 2017. Subramanian, Samanth.  "Inside the Macedonian Fake News Complex."
 Wired.  15 February 2017. Walsh, Martin.  "Obama: The Country Deserves Me a Debt of Gratitude for My Leadership."
 Conservative Daily Post.  16 December 2016. The Breaking News Today.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 18 July 2017. Infowars Today.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017. Morning News.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017. Politico.  "Full Transcript: President Obamas Final End-of-Year Press Conference."
  16 December 2017. USA Breaking News.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017.