'Ye, New York': Did Kanye West Try to Rename a City?
On March 11, 2021, a news outlet representing the city of Rye, in Westchester County, New York, reported that Kanye West was supposedly considering a move to the coastal town to start a new chapter after his divorce from Kim Kardashian.  Kim Kardashian As part of that alleged change, The Rye Record claimed the famous rapper filed a formal request with officials to drop the "R" from the city's name so it's strictly "Ye"  West's nickname and the title of his roughly 24-minute album released in 2018. 24-minute album "Rye officials may be 'highly motivated' by Wests offer to dedicate 10 percent of his wealth (estimated at $1,000,000,000 by Forbes) to erase both the City and School bond debt in full," the article alleged. "And in return, all West is asking is for the town to drop the R from its name." 1,000,000,000 In other words, the article claimed West was eyeing real estate in the town and willing to give millions of dollars to the municipal government if leaders agreed to change the name to "Ye." But no evidence substantiated the article's allegations, discrediting any assumptions that they authentically outlined West's plans. Namely, West's representatives did not respond to Snopes' questions to determine the validity of the name-change rumor, and nothing on his official social media channels or websites indicated that he was considering, or planning for, a move to Rye.   Additionally, we deemed the rumors "false" because no reputable news outlet corroborated them, when, hypothetically speaking, they would be eminently newsworthy if they were indeed true. Let us unpack that decision fully. As the basis to its reporting, The Rye Record article titled, "Amid Divorce, Kanye West Files With Rye City Council To Drop 'R' From Name. Asks Town To Rename To 'Ye,'" cited one unnamed source who supposedly runs in the celebrity's circle. Amid Divorce, Kanye West Files With Rye City Council To Drop 'R' From Name. Asks Town To Rename To 'Ye,' "Kanye wants to move somewhere low-key where people will be receptive to the impact he can make," the person supposedly told the news outlet. "He has big, big plans for Ye and is highly motivated to make this happen." While it is a common practice for journalists to grant anonymity to people who fear personal or professional repercussions for speaking publicly, it was unclear why  or under what circumstances  the Rye Record writers decided to conceal the alleged source's identity. But aside from concerns over the credibility of the story's sourcing, the article does not explain the nature of West's alleged request to rebrand the city. It simply says that at an unidentified time after Kardashian filed for a divorce on Feb. 19, he "filed paperwork" for the proposed name change. The story's text did not elaborate on the nature of the purported documentation, nor identify a Rye agency West supposedly contacted. (As we noted above, the story's headline claimed he filed the alleged documentation with the Rye City Council, specifically.) Rye City Council Snopes contacted the Rye City Court, where an administrator told us West had not filed any type of documentation there, and we reached out to the City Council about the rumor. We did not receive a response from the legislative body. Next, no business owner substantiated the claims about West's alleged property-hunting in the town of roughly 16,000 people. According to the article, people saw the rapper looking at properties in Rye to potentially develop into his home, a "music/studio/creative think-tank," and a church. The existing buildings supposedly include a space that's currently being leased by the local YMCA. But Business Insider contacted multiple business owners in the area to talk about the rumor, and two of them appeared to be learning about West's purported venture for the first time. "We haven't heard anything about it," Rye YMCA's Executive Director Gregg Howells told the news outlet. But Business Insider Lastly, the labeling of Rye Record's article appeared inconsistent on its website. In at least one place on the website, creators categorized the story about Kanye as a "column" (a category of editorial content where, generally speaking, writers express their opinions), though the same article also appeared in news sections and the outlet's social media channels. As of this writing, the story about Kanye was among the site's top articles framed as "news" and purportedly based on factual reporting.   Snopes reached out to multiple people listed as contacts on The Rye Record website to ask if, or to what extent, it fabricated the reporting, and, if not, how writers corroborated the anonymous source's assertions. We have not yet received a response. At least one other website -- a New York-based news outlet called Talk of the Sound -- recirculated the rumor, sourcing only The Rye Record article. "We will keep tracking this story until April 1st, which is, we would note, 3 weeks from today," that website said. other website Talk of the Sound Robert Cox, the publisher and managing editor of Talk of the Sound, reached out to Snopes after the initial publication of this report in mid-March. He dubbed The Rye Record article satire and said he attempted to make clear with his reporting that readers should not take the story seriously. "The Rye Record had opposed the recent bond referendum and their story was an inside joke," Cox wrote. In sum, while The Rye Record did not respond to our inquiry that would prove or disprove Cox's reading of the original article, we rate this claim "false" because no verified evidence corroborated its claims.   This article was updated with a "false" rating given the information from Robert Cox, the publisher of a local news outlet.
On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. On 1 April 2016, the web site Breitbart published an article reporting that a California man posing as a woman had been arrested after filming women in the bathroom of a Macy's department store: article A Palmdale, California, man wearing womens clothing was arrested in a Lancaster Macys store after he was seen in a womens bathroom. The man was allegedly videotaping women in the bathroom. Jason Pomare, 33, was arrested over the weekend after mall security officers learned he had been hanging out in a Macys department store womens bathroom. The security guards contacted a Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) deputy who found the cross-dressing man in a mall storage area, NBC Los Angeles reported. Breitbart also tied the story to anti-discrimination ordinances regarding bathroom usage by transgender people: It is not clear if Lancaster has a bathroom ordinance like the one defeated in Houston last year where men would legally be allowed to enter womens bathrooms and locker rooms. Breitbart Texas Lana Shadwick covered the defeat of that ordinance in Houston. Pomare was not charged with any offenses related to being in the womens bathroom other than the illegal filming. On 12 April 2016, the web site Daily Headlines published the same story, citing Breitbart as a source, and inaccurately confusing using bathrooms with filming inside them: published A man from Palmdale, California, wearing a bra and dress enters the ladies bathroom at Macys and what happens next should not surprise you. The man, Jason Pomare, 33, entered the bathroom which the ACLU and the liberal elitists in this country say is his God given right. He sets up a hidden camera in one of the stalls and for the next two hours, tapes women using the bathroom. Eventually, one woman noticed the camera with the record light on and notified mall security, who arrested Pomare. There was absolutely no way for anyone to see this coming, was there? (Removes tongue from cheek) Although Breitbart provided a link to the source for their report, the site either didn't bother to check that source's date or deliberately misrepresented the incident in order to leverage more interest in it. The linked news articlefrom Los Angeles television station KNBC was clearly dated 13 May 2013 (not 2016, or "last weekend"): article    KNBC's 2013 reporting described an unambiguous violation of the law. The incident had nothing to do with bathroom ordinances, itinvolved unquestionablyillegal actions, and the individual identifiedwas arrested and charged: bathroom ordinances Charges were filed against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom. Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store. Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of sexual gratification. After his arrest, investigators said a video camera found in his purse had "hours" of video of women using the restroom inside the store. (Pomare's arrest was alsoreported by the Antelope Valley Times in May 2013.) reported  Neither Breitbart nor Daily Headlines updated their articles to note that the incident hadn't taken place in April 2016, and that the arrest occurred well prior to the passage of any prominent bathroom ordinances. And both sitesfailed to take into account that more recent non-discrimination ordinances haven't legalized filming bathroom occupants, no matter what their gender identity might be. non-discrimination ordinances Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for the purposes of sexual gratification, a charge that would alsobe applicable in any jurisdiction that permitted transgender individuals to use bathrooms aligned with their gender. Ordinances of that nature haveno provisions permittingthe surreptitious filming of bathroom occupants for personal sexual gratification (or any other reason), nor have such provisions been sought or suggested by anyone.  Dilworth, M.  "Palmdale Man Arrested for Videotaping in Women's Bathroom."
  The Antelope Valley Times.  14 May 2013. Klemack, John Cadiz and Jonathan Lloyd.   "Man Disguised as Woman Recorded "Hours" of Mall Restroom Video: Investigators."
    KNBC-TV [Los Angeles].   14 May 2013. In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars  billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge  we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, Republican nominee Donna Campbell of Columbus paints him as a career politician with some questionable positions. In an ad posted online Oct. 19, the narrator compares Doggett and Campbell, an emergency room doctor. They disagree on ObamaCare: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says repeal. Stimulus spending: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says it's a waste of money. Cap and trade: Doggett voted yes, Campbell says job killer. We're not weighing in on whether the stimulus was a waste of money, or if cap and trade is a job killer. But since earlier this month we ratedTrueDoggett's statement that he voted against big bank bailouts, we were curious whether Campbell accurately recapped his votes on other high-dollar issues. Amanda Tyler, Doggett's campaign manager, told us by e-mail that Doggett voted for each piece of legislation, though the campaign has reservations about the visuals in Campbell's ad; for example, she said, a shot of a foreclosure sign doesn't make sense in connection with his vote for stimulus aid. Let's review Doggett's votes one at a time. Health care On Nov. 7, 2009, the U.S. House voted on its version of health care legislation in a 220-215 vote. Doggett joined 218 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, in passing the legislation. On March 21, 2010 , Doggett voted for legislation reconciling Senate and House versions of the proposal. The compromise passed 220-211, with no Republicans in support. Doggett said in a floor speech with this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured. We later rated that statement asTrue. Stimulus On Jan. 28, 2009, the House passed the $819 billion economic recovery bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Doggett voted aye. One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by promoting educational opportunity, he said on the House floor the day before. $13.5 billion of targeted tax relief to help young people and not-so young people attend college. Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify for this assistance. But because we provided a refundable tax credit, we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid. We asked Campbell's campaign why it showed an image of foreclosure sign while describing Doggett's vote for the stimulus legislation. Mike Asmus, Campbell's campaign manager, told us the stimulus spending Lloyd Doggett has voted for has prolonged the narrative of economic malaise, running from joblessness to foreclosure and beyond. Cap and trade Doggett voted for a cap-and-trade measure aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. With Doggett's vote, that proposal cleared the House 219-212 on June 26, 2009, though Doggett also aired objections about the measure being too soft, saying the plan stripped too much oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency and encouraged new coal-fired plants. I struggled deeply about whether to support this flawed bill, but I finally determined that voting for it was my best hope for making it better, he said on the floor that day. I've been listening to the debate  not so much to those who support a bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the Flat Earth Society and the climate-change deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge. Tyler also told us that Doggett hoped to improve the bill by being tapped to serve as a House member of a possible House-Senate conference committee on the plan. That panel never was named; the House-approved bill stalled in the Senate. Our vote? The ad's imagery might be objectionable (at least to Doggett). He still gave his 'aye' for all the legislation cited by Campbell. We rate her statement True. Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had  in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans  signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers.    As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall.  The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers.  It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing.  "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries.  place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant  but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively.  Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy  the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA.  letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living.  As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss  not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter.  figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors.  page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate."
 Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump."
 Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End."
 Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report."
U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross."
NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)"
 U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective."
 ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics  when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was "rounding the turn" on the deadly outbreak. rounding the turn By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: economy tweeted "Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!"   Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The COVID Tracking Project First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness  and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern  a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline  often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's "excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country," without further explanation. final of two presidential debates But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities  or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. "Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed," according to the CDC. excess mortalities CDC Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the "observed case fatality ratio," or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America  the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying  a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. data All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates  including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S.  with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: October study Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. the CDC There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. survival rate  During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities.   No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langones Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: Langones Center The New York Times We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they dont, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased  a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. "You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more," he said. said Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. individual responsibility  Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases  thats the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the "positivity rate," was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data.   Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. just 17 states "The data speak for themselves," said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. interview with BBC After all, the Trump administration listed "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was "poorly worded" and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. copy Fox News   Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: "We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers," in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. said While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered "great numbers" to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then  or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall.   For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough  as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing  not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant  when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. The COVID Tracking Project  All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an "exacerbation of the original first wave" of COVID-19 cases. To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends:   But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis  rather than nationally  which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress.  As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, "the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave," with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. Lisa Maragakis In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change.   Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. The Washington Post       As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. "We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline," the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. tweeted Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control  no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters.  "We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not," Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as "rounding the turn" on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim  C-SPAN. "Trump-Biden Second Debate."
 22 October 2020. New York Times. "Covid in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count."
  27 October 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Medicine. "Coronavirus Resource Center."
 Accessed 27 October 2020. Chiwaya, Nigel and Corky Siemaszko. "Trump Says We're 'Rounding the Turn,' But COVID-19 Is Spreading Faster Than Ever, NBC Numbers Show."
 NBCNews. 27 October 2020. BBC. "The Andrew Marr Show."
 25 October 2020. Ankel, Sophia. "Trump Kept on Declaring the US is 'Rounding the Turn' on COVID-19, Even As It Recorded Its 2 Worst-Ever Days of Infections."
 Business Insider. 25 October 2020. Farzan, Anthonia, et. al. "U.S. Coronavirus Infections hit Record Levels, With Hospitalizations and Deaths on the Rise."
 Washington Post. 27 October 2020. Bump, Phillip. "We Are Not 'Rounding the Corner' On the Coronavirus, pART 8,219,000."
 The Washington Post. 20 October 2020. Johns Hopkins. "America Is Reopening. But Have We Flattened The Curve?"
 Accessed 28 October 2020. Barone, Emily. "U.S. COVID-19 Cases Are Skyrocketing, But Deaths Are Flat -- So Far. These 5 Charts Explain Why."
 TIME. 26 October 2020. Parke, Caleb. "WH Communications Director Farah Says Science Office's COVID Statement Was 'Poorly Worded'
 FOXNews. 28 October 2020. White House. "Advancing America's Global Leadership In Science & Technology."
 October 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "The Pubic Deserves The Most Complete Data Available About COVID-19 In The US. No official Source Is Providing it, So We Are."
 Accessed 28 October 2020. Wagner, Abram. "What Makes A 'Wave' Of Disease? An Epidemiologist Explains,"
 The Conversation. Accessed 29 October 2020. World Health Organization. "About Pandemic Phases."
 Accessed 29 October 2020. Wagner, Abram. "What Makes a 'Wave' of Disease? An Epidemiologist Explains."
 University of Michigan School of Public Health. 6 July 2020. Maragakis Lockerd, Lisa. "First and Second Waves of Coronvirus."
 Johns Hopkins Medicine. 29 October 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "National Center for Health Statistics."
 Accessed 30 October 2020. This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. Republicans primary objection to the COVID-19 and economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress is that it spends relatively little on the disease itself. In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the $1.9 trillion package known as theAmerican Rescue Planwas loaded with pet projects that had nothing to do with the pandemic or economic recovery. All kinds of liberal wish list items that would do nothing to help American families put COVID behind them, McConnell saidFeb. 24. Just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. McConnells focus on 1% for vaccines caught our attention. His staff said he drew on the words of the Democrats themselves when they unveiled a key section of the sweeping bill. The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., highlighted a handful of items in the packagein a news release, including $14 billion for vaccines, $46 billion for testing, contact tracing, and mitigation, and $25 billion to reduce health disparities across the country. The nonpartisanCongressional Budget Officeand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetuse the $14 billion figure. However, there are different ways to add up the numbers. The same Democratic-controlled committee that provided the $14 billion figure came out a few days later with a factsheet thatuses an amountof $20 billion. And they note theres an additional $5 billion for advanced vaccine development. The different totals depend on what counts as vaccine spending. The lower figure in the first Democratic press release included only work at the CDC, the FDA, and ensuring a reliable supply chain to produce and administer the vaccine. The higher Democratic tally included other activities, such as sequencing the genome of virus variants and paying for health care workers to administer the vaccine. How much does this matter? In percentage terms, not that much. Even a total of $25 billion still amounts to just over 1% of the bills estimated price tag. Thats because the overall package includes big ticket items such as$422 billionin stimulus checks to individuals, $350 billion for state and local governments, and$242 billionfor expanded unemployment benefits. But in terms of dollars, theres a big difference between $14 billion and $20 billion or $25 billion. The point is, its possible to use percentages to make an amount appear small, and actual dollars to make the same amount look substantial. The most heated debate in Congress centers on how the American Rescue Plan deals with the economic damage of the pandemic. McConnells claim has more to do with the money aimed most directly at the virus and pandemic itself. In that vein, focussing strictly on vaccines leaves out a lot of the picture. The biggest overlooked piece is $46 billion for testing and other surveillance work. That work is as important as any other, said Amesh Adalja at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Better surveillance helps target vaccine distribution to certain states or communities, and is part of spotting virus mutations to improve the next generation of vaccines. There is a continuum and integration between all response activities, Adajla said. Those include testing, tracing, isolating and vaccinating. Vaccines have to make their way into peoples arms, and the legislation funds several programs to support that work, including $7.6 billion to hire 100,000 community health workers. We found different ways to add up all the spending tied directly to COVID-19. On the low end, the total is about$100 billion. On the high end, theWhite Housesays it is $160 billion, which adds items such as$10 billionin medical supplies, $24 billion in child care for health care and other essential workers, and literally dozens of smaller amounts. Depending on which line items you include, the legislation would spend anywhere from 4.5% to 8.5% of the total cost directly on the pandemics health aspects. McConnell said that in the American Rescue Plan, just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. Based on Democratic figures of either $14 billion or $20 billion for vaccines, and a $1.9 trillion overall price tag, the math is about right. The American Rescue Plan spends much more on the financial damage caused by the virus than on its health aspects alone, and McConnell picked a way to minimize the health-related spending. The statistic omits a much greater amount of spending on overall efforts to contain the pandemic. That ranges from about $100 billion to $160 billion, or between 5% and 8% of the bills total cost. His statement is accurate, but needs additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.