We cut our deficits by more than half.
In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True.
On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. In thevideoannouncing his run for California governor, RepublicanTravis Allensaid he wants to reduce the states crime rate and its high taxes. We recently fact-checked Allens claims on crime in the video. The Orange County state assemblyman earned aMostly Falsefor his statement that crime is on the rise in all the states major metros. We found he cherry-picked data from an uptick in crime in 2015 and ignored the states decades-long decline in crime which continued in early 2016. Given the importance of taxes in California, we also decided to examine Allen's claims on this topic. Ive seen our taxes increase to be among the highest in the nation, Allen said in the campaignvideoon June 22, 2017. In California, we must get serious about cutting our taxes. Californians pay among the highest taxes in the entire nation. Allen makes his claim at about the 0:15 minute mark of the video above. Was Allen right? Are Californias taxes really among the highest in the nation? We set out on a fact check. Our research We decided to examine where California ranks in key tax categories, including income, sales and property taxes. Additionally, we looked at how California measures up in a more comprehensive category: Its overall state-local tax burden. We also spoke with several tax experts for some context on these rankings. They all said comparing tax rates is doable but messy, noting that states assess taxes in different ways. Allens campaign did not respond to our request for evidence to support his claim. Heres what we found in each key tax category: Income tax Californias top tier income tax rate is the highest in the nation at 13.3 percent, according to theTax FoundationandCalifornia Taxpayers Association. Its the rate paid by Californians who earn more than $1 million annually. Maine had the second highest top rate at 10.15 percent, followed by Oregons 9.9 percent, as of Jan. 1, 2017. Several states have no income tax, including Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida. Of course, only a fraction of Californians pay the top income tax rate, noted Annette Nellen, professor and director of the graduate tax program at San Jose State University. A recentSacramento Bee analysisof state tax data found 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent of the states 16 million total, reported income of more than $1 million in 2014. This is a very small percentage of the population, Nellen said. Not everybody is paying that. So, if someone was to say we have really high taxes in California, sometimes thats interpreted as everybodys paying a really high tax when in California we also have a fairly high exemption for individuals and children which might cause some lower-income folks to not pay any California income tax at all, at least not directly. Per capita, Californians pay $1,991 annually in state income taxes, which ranks fourth highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation. Sales tax While only a fraction pay the states top income tax rate, everyone who lives here or visits pays Californias highest-in-the-nation sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. Four states tie for the second-highest statewide sales tax rate, at 7 percent: Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, according to the Tax Foundation. States with no sales tax include Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and Delaware. When adding state and local sales taxes, California rank drops to 10th highest. This combined tax rate varies across the state. In some parts of Los Angeles County, for example, it tops 10 percent, said David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. The association researches tax data and opposes what it calls unnecessary taxes. Property tax Unlike Californias income and sales tax rates, the state's average effective property tax rate is among the lowest in the nation, at 0.72 percent, or 36th among states, according to the Tax Foundation. Thats due to voter approved Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases to no more than 2 percent per year. New Jersey had the highest property tax rate at more than 2.1 percent, according to a2016 reportby the Tax Foundation. Still, Kline said, property tax in California is compounded by additional taxes, such as parcel taxes and Mello-Roos assessments, or fees charged to property owners in a specific area to pay for public improvements such as streets and parks. Those can add hundreds or thousands of dollars every year, he added. Total tax burden In addition to ranking individual tax categories, the Tax Foundation produces a more comprehensive category it calls the State-Local Tax Burden. It measures the share of income in the state that goes to state and local taxes. California ranked sixth highest on this list at 11 percent. New Yorkers faced the highest burden at 12.7 percent, followed by Connecticut at 12.6 percent. Alaskans paid the smallest share of their income, 6.5 percent, in state and local taxes. We asked Joe Henchman, vice president of the Tax Foundation, about the accuracy of Allens claim that Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. I think its a fair comment to make, Henchman said. Unless youre being really specific about a particular type of tax, California is usually at the high end of the states. Its almost always in the top half of the states in terms of a tax or its burden or how much people pay. And its often in the Top 10. Exceptions do exist, he said, such as Californias low taxes on wine (44th highest), spirits (40th) and beer (28th), compared with other states. Nellen, the San Jose State University tax professor, agreed Californias taxes are generally high and said Allens claim is mostly backed up by the facts. Growth and taxes In recent years, top Democrats in California have deflected criticism about the states high taxes by pointing to strong employment and GDP growth. Gov. Jerry Brown, for example, has repeatedly pointed to themore than 2 million jobsCalifornia has created since he returned to office in 2011. Allen has criticized Browns recent signing of a 12 cent per gallon increase in the states gas tax. That move is expected to make Californias gas tax second highest in the nation, behind Pennsylvanias, once it goes into effect in Nov. 1, 2017. Henchman said, for now, Californias economy has succeeded despite its high taxes. Nobody moves to California because of taxes, he said. They move in spite of the taxes, because of other positive benefits. Theres good weather, theres Silicon Valley, theres great universities, theres Hollywood, etc., etc. Those, for a lot of people, make it worth paying the taxes, to a point, Henchman added. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor Travis Allen recently claimed Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. Allens statement is broad and needs clarification. But when looking at some of the most important tax categories, including income, sales and gasoline taxes, theres a lot of truth to his claim. California has the highest top tier income tax and the highest state sales tax in the nation. Its important to note that the top rate income tax is paid by only a fraction of households in the state, and that the sales tax rate drops to 10th in the nation when local and state sales taxes are examined state-by-state. Notably, it does not have one of the nations highest property tax rates, at 36th highest. Allens claim is accurate but needs this additional information. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. UPDATE:An earlier version of this fact check described California's property tax rate as 0.72 percent. We have clarified that this is the state's average effective property tax rate. Visit our Tracking the Truth serieshereto see all of our 2018 governor's race fact-checks. Governors race Allenis one of several Republican candidates to announce a run for California governor. The others include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and former state Assemblyman David Hadley of Manhattan Beach. Several prominent Democratsare also competing in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. They include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa, California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. A new Trump administration directive targeting international students at U.S. colleges is beingchallenged by universitiesin court  and by pundits on the cable news channels. Thenew Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidancewould bar foreign college students from staying in the country if they take all their courses online. International students enrolled atHarvard Universityandother U.S. collegesthat have moved fall-semester classes entirely online due to the coronavirus pandemic will have to leave the U.S. or transfer to a school with in-person teaching, according to the new rule. The rule, if put into effect, could trim the number of foreign students in the U.S. and at specific universities. It could also deal a blow to the U.S. economy, said MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who argued on his primetime TV show that the policy has no upside. Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors, Hayes said, while displaying achart on U.S. education exports. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, (in the) 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Hayes statistics are accurate. In 2019, U.S. service exports from education totaled roughly $44 billion, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. That made education the sixth largest service export for the year, behind services such as personal travel and professional and management consulting, a spokesperson for the International Trade Administration said. Academic experts and representatives from nonprofits focused on international education also backed Hayes claims. An ICE spokesperson said Hayes statement was accurate but declined to comment further due topending litigation. Higher education is one of the few areas in which we have a big surplus of exports over imports, said Dick Startz, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who wrote about the economics of education in a2017 article for the Brookings Institution. All three of the statistics Hayes cited are correct. More than 1 million international students studied at U.S. institutions during the 2018-19 academic year, according to theInstitute of International EducationandNAFSA: Association of International Educators, two nonprofits dedicated to international education. The two organizations reported that those international students contributed more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy during the year. Experts said higher education can be considered an export because international students pay their tuition and living expenses to colleges and universities using money from abroad. International students are buying an American education, Startz said. Hence its an export. Exports from education amounted to roughly $44 billion in 2019, up from about $42.6 billion in 2018, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. Thats more than the U.S. made from exporting manyother goodsand services in the same timeframe. Education ranked sixth among service exports in 2019, the International Trade Administration spokesperson told us. It wasfifth in 2018. Those numbers make sense when you factor in thecost of college, said Judith Scott-Clayton, professor of economics and education at Columbia Universitys Teachers College. If there are 1.1 million international students in the country, and each of them spends about $40,000 on U.S. tuition and living expenses, that gets you to $44 billion, she said. In an email to PolitiFact, Hayes also cited theInternational Trade Administrationand anarticle in the New York Times Magazinein which an Institute of International Education adviser was quoted saying higher education is one of Americas biggest exports. But the article said U.S. schools were losing their international appeal for a number of reasons, including rising tuition costs and various policies enacted under President Donald Trump. Rachel Banks, NAFSAs senior director for public policy and legislative strategy, said in a statement that new international student enrollment is down over 10% since the fall of 2016, a trend NAFSAestimateshas cost the U.S. economy $11.8 billion. Thats before the impacts of a global pandemic and related travel restrictions, several presidential proclamations targeting immigrants and nonimmigrants, and this guidance, Banks said. Therefore, we dont anticipate this downward trajectory to reverse itself anytime soon. Hayes said, Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Government agencies, academic experts and nonprofit organizations said Hayes statistics are correct. The money the U.S. gets from foreign students studying at its colleges and universities makes education one of the countrys top service exports. We rate this statement True. A few days before she hit the stage in front of a national audience at the Republican National Convention, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte addressed a far smaller crowd in Merrimack, N.H.Despite the difference in venue, the New Hampshire Republican offered a similar message.During the town hall meeting, Ayotte, a Nashua native and freshman senator, took aim at President Obama and the growing debt under his administration. While she didnt specifically blame the president for the debt, she used the speech to blast Obama for increased spending and stifling business.Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Ayotte told the crowd Thursday, August 23, 2012, at Merrimack High School. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion ... in the 3 1/2 years he's been in office.The numbers have been used before. Lastweek, PolitiFact gave aMostly Trueratingto a similar claim by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the debt has jumped $5 trillion during Obamas time in office.But, does that mean Ayottes numbers are on target? Lets take a look.The numbers arent hard to track.The U.S. Department of the Treasury tracks the national debt figures on its website,TreasuryDirect.gov.On the site, the treasury department divides the national debt into two main categories, debt held by the government and debt held by the public. But, in her statement, Ayotte is referring to the combined total, or total national debt, according to spokesman Jeff Grappone.According to the federal count, the total debt currently sits around $16 trillion. But, as of August, 23, when Ayotte made the statement, it was closer to $15.98 trillion. That figure is about $5.35 trillion higher than the $10.63 trillion debt Obama inherited when he came into office January 19, 2009.When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion, and by the end of his eight years, it grew to $10.63 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.9 trillion. So, Ayottes numbers look right on target.Still, as is so often the case, the numbers dont tell the whole story, according to analysts.At PolitiFact, we consider not just the factual accuracy of a statement, but also whether credit and blame is fairly attributed.Federal spending records show that both Democrats and Republican share the blame for the increased spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obamas first two years, but Republicans have held the House of Representatives since January 2011.Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.Its true. They both contributed, said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institutions Budgeting for National Priorities Project. I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. Were seeing the impact of that now.Our ruling:Ayottes got her numbers right. According to the treasury departments count, the debt has grown $5.3 trillion since Obama took office in 2009, compared to $4.9 trillion in Bushs eight years.Still, analysts say these figures dont paint a full picture of the root causes of the debt.In her statement, Ayotte doesnt attribute direct credit or blame, but she did use the speech to blast Obama and his policies.We rate her claim Mostly True. In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected.  In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL:  Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions.  Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc Since at least as far back as 2011, the Internet has been plagued by a viral warning about a danger to car owners, who supposedly create a significant risk of explosion by filling their vehicles' gas tanks to capacity during hot weather:  This premise sounds terrifying, but thankfully it makes zero scientific sense. This claim is complete hogwash for two clear and incontrovertible reasons. The first is that the temperature at which fuel auto-ignites (i.e. the temperature at which fuel will combust without a trigger or spark) is around 495F. This level is far higher than any temperature a covered, insulated tank could possibly achieve simply by being driven or parked on planet Earth. around 495F The second reason concerns the implication that pressure will dangerously build up in car's gas tank during hot weather, leading to higher temperatures within the tank and, somehow, an eventual spontaneous explosion. However, modern fuel tanks must have the ability to vent pressure. Since 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required that all internal combustion engine cars include evaporative emission control (or EVAP) systems. This mechanism collects excess fuel vented from a tank (to maintain even pressure) and, when conditions are correct, returns it to the tank. 1971 EVAP Prior to the adoption of these regulations, many gas tanks simply relied upon vented gas caps, leading to the occasional release of liquid gas onto the ground or the emission of volatile chemicals into the atmosphere. A significant build-up of pressure would still not occur in such older vehicles, however. vented gas caps When this rumor hit the Middle East in 2015, the local press were quick to debunk it: Middle East The new rumour last week was about the dangers of filling car tanks to the maximum capacity in summer months circulated widely on social media. As usual the rumour-monger[ing] attributed the information to an official body  Adnoc Distribution. The rumour mill on social media suggested that fully filled car tanks could cause fires or explosions in summer. Adnoc Distribution confirmed that it has not issued any warnings against filling car tanks to maximum capacity. Khalid Hadi, Vice-President, Marketing and Corporate Communications at Adnoc Distribution, said: We would like to point out that filling fuel tanks to full capacity does not imply any risks as all car fuel tanks are designed to withstand pressure build-up in high temperatures. Furthermore, Adnoc Distribution has not registered any such previous incident [of cars exploding]. The rumour attributed to us is based on unknown sources, and is therefore completely false, Hadi said. The 2018 version of this rumor (reproduced in a graphic at the head of this page) attributes the warning to Pakistan State Oil (PSO), who similarly took to social media to disclaim it: disclaim <!-- Pakistan State Oil (PSO) has announced that filling fuel tank to its full capacity poses no threat of any kind to the cars or its passengers.PSO made the statement after a Whatsapp message went viral over the past few days. The message falsely claimed that PSO had warned the public against filling fuel tanks to the full capacity in light of increasing temperatures.Auto igniting temperature of petrol is way above the highest temperatures during summers in Pakistan. Filling your fuel tank to its full capacity poses no threat of any kind neither to the car nor to its passengers and is deemed completely safe and beneficial to the running of the car.--> The bottom line: Because the temperature required to spark a spontaneous fire in a gas tank is unreasonably high, and because gas tanks by their nature vent excess pressure, we rank this claim as false. Charles, Craig.  "Dont Fill Petrol Tank to the Limit or Risk Explosion? Debunked."
  Thats Nonsense.  9 June 2016.  American Petroleum Institute.  "Alcohols and Ethers: A Technical Assessment of Their Application as Fuels and Fuel Components."
  1 June 2001.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Milestones in Auto Emissions Control (Fact Sheet OMS-12)."
  August 1994.  George, Patrick, E.  "How Evaporative Emission Control Systems Work."
  How Stuff Works.  2 July 2018. Kader, Binsal Abdul.  "Filling Fuel Tanks to the Maximum Capacity Not Dangerous During Summer."
  Gulf News.   23 May 2015. Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). In January 2021, Snopes received several inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely shared meme that claimed Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, was in fact a registered Democrat and supporter of President Joe Biden. Seefried came to the attention of the FBI after photographs showed him carrying a Confederate flag inside the halls of Congress. The meme consisted of one of those photographs, along with the following text: "This 'domestic terrorist,' who brought a Confederate flag into the Capitol during this outrageous attack on America has been arrested in his home state of Delaware. His name is Kevin Seefried. He's a registered Democrat and Biden supporter. Is Pelosi going to impeach Biden now too?"   The popularity of the meme can be seen in the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts containing it: Facebook posts   As evidence in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat, some Facebook users cited a listing for a "Kevin D Seefried" on the website VoterRecords.com: listing   However, the only credible evidence available strongly indicates that Seefried is a supporter of Trump, who took part in a destructive effort to overturn the lawful and legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, which Biden won. In court filings, an FBI special agent wrote that Seefried had said he traveled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 "to hear President Trump speak."  Furthermore, the only supposed evidence presented in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat and Biden supporter is fatally flawed. The voter registration listing came from an unofficial source, and in any case referred to a voter born in 1986, and therefore decades younger than Seefried, who is 51 years old. Since we don't have voter registration information for Seefried, we can't definitively say that he is not a registered Democrat, and so we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." However, the available evidence strongly indicates that, whatever his voter registration might be, Seefried acted in support of Trump and took part in an effort to overturn Biden's legitimate victory  hardly in keeping with the meme's baseless description of him as a "Biden supporter." The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, which led to several deaths, damaged the reputation of the movement  spearheaded by Trump  to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election using baseless conspiracy theories that falsely alleged widespread electoral fraud. widespread electoral fraud As a result, some Trump supporters attempted to distance that movement from the events of that day, falsely claiming that the attack had been planned or perpetrated by left-wing agents provocateurs, in particular antifa (short for "anti-fascist"). We have addressed and debunked several strands of that conspiracy theory, and the "Biden supporter Seefried" meme appears to be just another such example. addressed debunked several strands On Jan. 14, Seefried and his 23-year-old son Hunter were charged with the following three offenses each: charged An affidavit written by an FBI special agent stated that: both Seefried and his son were captured on video breaking into the Capitol through a broken window; that Hunter Seefried had cleared glass from that semi-broken window in order to clear a path for entry; and that once inside, Seefried brandished a Confederate flag through the halls of the Capitol.  affidavit According to the FBI affidavit, the two men were identified because of a tip-off from one of Hunter's co-workers, who claimed Hunter had bragged about his participation in the attack on the Capitol. The co-worker also recognized Hunter's face from a police flier requesting information from the public about persons of interest from the riot. According to the FBI, both men confirmed their involvement in the attack on the Capitol during interviews conducted on Jan. 12. The affidavit states that Kevin Seefried told federal agents he had travelled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in order to hear Trump speak at a rally at the Ellipse, near the White House, and that he had subsequently marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Seefried reportedly told the FBI he had brought the Confederate flag with him from Delaware, where it normally flies outside his house. Worcester County, Maryland court records list Kevin Seefried's month and year of birth as March 1969, meaning he was 51 years old when he was charged. The address listed in those records is located in Laurel, Delaware, and matches the location of his family home, which the Delaware News Journal visited and described in a Jan. 15, 2021 report. report The same residential address is found in Worcester County court records for Hunter Seefried, and those records list his month and year of birth as November 1997, meaning he was 23 years old when charged.  Given that Kevin Seefried is 51 years old, he could not be the same individual listed as a registered Democrat on VoterRecords.com  the only piece of supposed evidence put forward to support the claim that Seefried is a secret Biden supporter. However, Seefried's actual voter registration information, if it exists, was not readily available, so we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that he is registered as a Democrat, notwithstanding his current political views. Snopes contacted attorneys for both Kevin and Hunter Seefried, in an effort to clear up those uncertainties, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  If we receive information that clarifies Seefried's voter registration status, we will update this fact check accordingly. For now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven."