Can You Buy COVID-19 Vaccines on the Dark Web?
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 December 2020, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, the FBI and other federal agencies began to warn of fraudsters exploiting interest in the newly released vaccine. INTERPOL, as well, issued an Orange Notice alerting law enforcement to "potential criminal activity in relation to the falsification, theft and illegal advertising of COVID-19 and flu vaccines." approved warn Orange Notice One area where these scams have reportedly proliferated is the so-called dark web. Broadly speaking, the dark web refers to unindexed content on the internet that can not be searched for and that, among other things, contains several anonymous marketplaces and forums that purport to sell a wide range of illicit material. On Feb. 8, 2021, CBS News reported that "in just the last six weeks, the number of vaccine ads on the dark web has exploded," adding that "the asking prices have doubled or even quadrupled." reportedly refers reported For a Dec. 25, 2020, segment on PlanetMoney, NPR spoke to Chad Anderson, a senior security researcher at the cyberthreat intelligence agency Domain Tools. "We're a cyberthreat intelligence data company," he explained, "so we scan the entire Internet as many times as we can every single day and give insights to customers based upon what we see." Back then, he argued the vaccine ads popping up on the dark web were clearly scams. NPR Chad Anderson "For one thing," NPR correspondent Stacey Vanek Smith explained, "the Pfizer vaccine requires a very intense cold storage chain. The vaccines have to be kept at negative 70 degrees Fahrenheit." And also, she added, "the COVID vaccine ads are mixed in with ads for all kinds of other things, and Chad says that tends to be a red flag." At the time of this reporting, the only two FDA-approved vaccines are the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. Both shots are mRNA vaccines, and as such they both require this high level of refrigeration for transport. explained Snopes reached out to Anderson to ask if ads for vaccines on dark web marketplaces still appeared to be scams, as of February 2021. "Just went and took a look at the last of the 'reputable' markets [on the dark web] and I still don't see any COVID vaccines for sale on there," he wrote to us by email, adding that he did see some ads for the largely discredited treatment hydroxychloroquine, but not much else on the COVID-19 front. One problem with the dark web, however, is that there is no requirement for "reputable behavior" and few safeguards against predatory behavior. Several media reports have cited a dark web market named Agartha as having ads for COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed it does  several hundred of them, according to a recent analysis by Snopes  but these ads are all comically obvious frauds. One ad listed under "opiates," for instance, asked for "mutual trust" in its effort to sell some "Moderona" vaccine: media reports   Other ads claim to be able to ship the Pfizer vaccine, which as a reminder requires extreme refrigeration for storage, by FedEx at no additional cost. Many ads, like the one below, don't even specify what vaccine product they purport to sell. Instead, the ad appears to be a bait-and-switch for a seller peddling other drugs ranging from marijuana to fentanyl:   According to DomainTools' Anderson, "Agartha is considered an entire scam market." He added that "I've never thrown money into my user wallet on there, but I have heard from others that the moment you do it's immediately siphoned off to another wallet that I would assume is the wallet of those running the site." CBS News, in its reporting, cited the work of cybersecurity company Check Point. That firm attempted to purchase COVID-19 vaccines from various dark web sellers, even sending a Bitcoin payment to one. "A few days after the Bitcoin transaction, Check Point received a message from the vendor saying the vaccine had been shipped, CBS reported. "Then a few days later, that vendor's account completely disappeared from the site." They never received any product in return, and the firm concluded that none of the sellers they found actually had any vaccine to sell.  reported Overt fraud aside, a possibility remains that as more easily transportable vaccines are approved and produced, a dark web black market for vaccines could develop. "As time goes by, and more people get access to legitimate doses, there's always the possibility that some of that real product could make its way onto the dark web," CBS reported. "More providers will lead to looser shipping restrictions," Anderson agreed. reported The risks from engaging in these transactions are multifaceted. Outside of a potential loss of money, there are risks of receiving unknown and dangerous drugs instead of a vaccine or having identifying information stolen. "In addition to the dangers of ordering potentially life-threatening products," a December 2020 Interpol news release stated, "an analysis by the INTERPOLs Cybercrime Unit revealed that of 3,000 websites associated with online pharmacies suspected of selling illicit medicines and medical devices, around 1,700 contained cyber threats, especially phishing and spamming malware." In other words, even if these listings were not overt scams, it's not worth the risk. stated Because at this time there are several ads for COVID-19 vaccines on various dark web markets of low repute, but that none of them appear to be legitimate, we rate the claim that the vaccines are for sale as "false."
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, after all major news organizations declared former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden the winner of the presidential election, President Donald Trump's campaign claimed in a series of fundraising emails that the election was "far from over," and that supporters should not believe messages to the contrary. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Joe Biden Donald Trump here In other words, the emails claimed either Biden or Trump could serve as the country's 46th president come Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, 2021  even though Biden won key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable vote margins and exceeded the 270 Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.   The emails  like the president's tweets that falsely claimed he had won or denied Biden's victory  were part of an aggressive disinformation campaign attempting to attack the integrity of America's democratic process and convince supporters that Trump had a significant chance to serve another term. falsely claimed he had won "Joe Biden only won in the eyes of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. I concede NOTHING. We have a long way to go  this was a flawed ELECTION," said a Nov. 19 campaign email obtained by Snopes.   To unpack the underlying claim  that American elections provide losing candidates an opportunity to defy the outcome of the popular vote  let's first lay out the country's steps for presidential elections under the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws. Every four years, when Americans cast ballots in presidential elections, they are participating in the countrys popular vote. That happened Nov. 3 in the Trump-Biden race. Days later on Nov. 7, Biden was announced the winner of the popular vote based on the number of votes counted so far compared to the margin of votes between him and Trump in key battleground states. (Read why and how journalists make that determination in presidential races here.) here Typically, at that point in an election, the losing candidate acknowledges defeat by conceding to his opponent and addressing supporters in a speech. But Trump not only did not do that, he and his allies went a step further by spewing the unfounded conspiracy theory that any person or group who acknowledged Biden's victory was working to undermine the president. defeat by conceding Whether a candidate accepts the outcome of the popular vote or not, state officials at polling sites nationwide continue to count remaining ballots over the course of days or weeks, according to their respective rules. That process, which historically is a procedural step to cement the outcome of the popular vote, requires governors to prepare whats called a Certificate of Ascertainment that lists their state's slate of electors. For example, Biden won the popular vote in Minnesota, so that's state's certificate would list 10 Democratic electors who pledged to vote for Biden through the Electoral College. popular vote electors Likewise, if, hypothetically, Trump had won the Midwestern state, the state's certificate would list a different group of 10 people  electors who pledged to vote for the Republican candidate. All of this said, electors meet at state capitals in early December, weeks after Election Day, to formally cast votes for president and vice president, per guidelines outlined in the Constitution. No constitutional provision, nor any federal law, requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote; however, the majority of states and the District of Columbia have their own laws governing the Electoral College and aim to keep electors from defying the popular vote. Here are specific deadlines for those above-described steps in presidential elections, per The Associated Press: The Associated Press Dec. 8 is the deadline for resolving election disputes at the state level. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results are to be completed by this date. Dec. 14: Electors vote by paper ballot in their respective states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-three states and D.C. have laws or party regulations requiring electors to vote the same way the popular vote goes in the state, and in some states, electors can even be replaced or subjected to penalties, according to the Congressional Research Service. Dec. 23: The certificates must be delivered to the designated officials. If they are not delivered, the law provides alternative avenues for getting the results to Washington. Jan. 6, 2021: The House and Senate hold a joint session to count the electoral votes. If one ticket has received 270 or more electoral votes, the president of the Senate, currently Vice President Mike Pence, announces the results. So, in short, a presidential election doesn't end on Election Day, nor when a candidate is projected the winner by news media. Rather, presidential elections officially conclude the following year, in January. But it's a false interpretation of state and federal laws governing presidential elections to consider those continuing steps after polls close on Election Day  when states certify results or choose electors, or the Electoral College votes for president  as opportunities to defy the popular vote. Per analysis of the guidelines by constitutional experts and election academics, the post-election day procedures mainly serve to cement what voters decided at the county and state level. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign alleging the election was "far from over" asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses.  Brendan Fischer "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, it was accurate to claim the 2020 presidential election was incomplete as of mid-November. However, it was false to categorize the remaining procedures as reasonable opportunities for Trump to overturn Biden's victory. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." On Nov. 17, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted a Nov. 14 article from the New Republic on X (formerly Twitter) with the headline, "A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality  and We All Missed It."  posted  This claim  that a city ordinance in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, banned public homosexuality  was broadly true when an ordinance on "community decency" went into effect in June 2023. But explicit reference to homosexuality was removed from the code in November 2023. claim June 2023 In June 2023, the Murfreesboro City Council passed Ordinance 23-O-22, a law purportedly regarding community decency that The Associated Press described as being "designed to ban drag performances from taking place on public property." As described by its authors, the new law "supplement[ed] existing civil and criminal sanctions for indecent behavior [by] barring persons who engage in prohibited conduct from sponsoring events on a public space for two years and increasing to five years where the prohibited conduct occurs in the presence of minors." Ordinance 23-O-22 described described The bill included "sexual conduct" as one form of indecent behavior covered by the June 2023 enhancements to the code. This "conduct" term, however, was defined by "Section 21-71 of the Murfreesboro City Code," which had been in place since the 1970s and that defined terms used in a section of city code detailing criminal offenses related to "exposing minors to harmful materials." That code defined "sexual conduct" in a way that broadly included "acts of [...] homosexuality":  Section 21-71 "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast. A literal reading of the new law therefore could have criminalized any sort of public display of homosexuality, even if such a display was not overtly sexual or sexual in nature. Then in October 2023, the city, citing the new law, denied a permit to the non-profit Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) to hold a Pride rally, which the group had held every year since 2016. That decision was made on the basis of this new city code and the allegedly indecent material present at the 2022 TEP event. As reported by The Associated Press, the ACLU took up the case on behalf of TEP: reported The legal challenge is the latest development in the ongoing political battle over LGBTQ+ rights inside Tennessee, where the states conservative leaders have sought to limit events where drag performers may appear, restrict classroom conversations about gender and sexuality, and ban gender-affirming care. [...] According to the 67-page complaint, the organization [TEP] has faced recent opposition from Murfreesboro leaders after conservative activists alleged that drag performances that took place during the 2022 Pride event resulted in the illegal sexualization of kids." TEP denied the shows were inappropriate, noting that the performers were fully clothed. However, the city quickly warned the organization it would be denying any future event permits and later approved updating its community decency standards intended to assist in the determination of conduct, materials, and events that may be judged as obscene or harmful to minors. The suit alleges the ordinance violates the First Amendment for chilling free speech rights, as well as argues that it breaks the 14th Amendment for discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community. On Oct. 26, the federal judge assigned to the case issued an order blocking the city from denying TEP's request for a permit to hold the 2023 pride event. As reported by the Daily News Journal: reported [The] ruling tells the local government, Murfreesboro City Manager Craig Tindall, Mayor Shane McFarland, the Murfreesboro Police Department and other city officials, that they "shall not enforce or take any action pursuant to the provision to Murfreesboro City Code 21-71 that includes 'homosexuality' within the definition of 'sexual conduct.'" Against this backdrop, in October 2023, the Murfreesboro council took up the issue of removing homosexuality from the list of "acts" that could constitute sexual conduct. On Nov. 2, a proposal removing the word passed, with the change set to take effect on Nov. 17  the day of Newsom's tweet. As reported by journalist Erin Reed: reported Good news. As of tomorrow, Murfreesboro will not have "homosexuality" in its code banning public homosexuality anymore. That said, the new indecency law that Murfreesboro passed still contains very vague "community standards" provisions used to target Pride and LGBTQ books. pic.twitter.com/N4rFzqhxFX pic.twitter.com/N4rFzqhxFX  Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) November 16, 2023 November 16, 2023  Reed argued that while this change made "the targeting of LGBTQ+ people less explicit," the "vague 'community standards' section will still likely be used to target Pride events and books," she said. The ACLU case is ongoing. argued "The parties agreed and the judge accepted an agreement temporarily suspending enforcement of an ordinance designed to specify certain civil penalties against indecency in public spaces and to protect children from indecent conduct," Murfreesboro spokesman Mike Browning said in a statement. "However, other existing state statutes and city ordinances and penalties regarding such conduct remain applicable. said Because public homosexuality is no longer explicitly prohibited by Murfreesboro city code, the claim made by Newsom and others is out of date. It is still possible, however, based on statements made by the local government and the broad nature of the law, that the portion of code remaining could be used to prevent future LGBTQ+ events. 23-O-22 Community Decency Standards Ordinance . https://www.wkrn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/73/2023/06/061523-Community-Decency.pdf. Granieri, Susanna. ACLU Sues a Tennessee City Over An Anti-Drag Ordinance. First Amendment Watch, 10 Oct. 2023, https://firstamendmentwatch.org/aclu-sues-a-tennessee-city-over-an-anti-drag-ordinance/. Municode Library. https://library.municode.com/tn/murfreesboro/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH21OFMIPR_ARTIIIEXMIHAMA_S21-71DE. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023. Otten, Tori, et al. A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexualityand We All Missed It. The New Republic, 1 Nov. 2022. The New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality. Reed, Erin. City Ordinance Banning Public Homosexuality Reaches Rutherford County Libraries. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/city-ordinance-banning-public-homosexuality. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023. Tennessee City Walks Back Ban on Public Homosexuality  Kind Of. Yahoo News, 17 Nov. 2023, https://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-city-walks-back-ban-151306443.html. We Are Relieved: BoroPride Wins Court Order to Protect LGBTQ+ Festival from Government. The Daily News Journal, https://www.dnj.com/story/news/2023/10/23/boropride-wins-court-order-to-protect-lgbtq-festival-from-government/71288469007/. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023. After Illinois teen Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with fatally shooting two people and wounding another during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020, Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers wondering if a self-described Christian crowdfunding website was hosting a fundraiser to supposedly help pay Rittenhouse's legal defense. two people and wounding another The killings occurred during a chaotic confrontation between people protesting the Aug. 23 police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, and armed vigilantes who claimed to be patrolling the lakeside city to prevent looting and property destruction. Rittenhouse, 17, was captured in video footage carrying a military-style rifle, marching alongside members of the latter group, and putting his hands up after shots were fired. Authorities arrested him on Aug. 26 in connection with the deaths in Antioch, Illinois, where he was being held without bail and awaiting his next court hearing on Sept. 25. Jacob Blake footage was being held without bail The charges against Rittenhouse included first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a life sentence. The Chicago Tribune reported: The Chicago Tribune Rittenhouses case immediately became a popular cause in conservative circles, where pundits began defending the teenager before he had even been charged. At least two defense funds have been launched in his name in recent days, though its unclear if the Rittenhouse family supports either of those efforts. That brings us to the question from Snopes readers: Was a website that brands itself as Christian called GiveSendGo hosting an apparent online fundraiser to help Rittenhouse pay court costs? First, we searched several crowdfunding sites for online campaigns with a similar stated goal: to raise money to help Rittenhouse or his family fight criminal charges against him. None appeared on GoFundMe, as of this report. GoFundMe Several crowdfunding pages, however, were active and allegedly supporting Rittenhouse's case on Fundly (see partial search results below). Additionally, a conservative student group at Arizona State University pledged to donate half of its future fundraising dollars to the cause. "[Rittenhouse] does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot," the college group tweeted. Fundly conservative student group pledged tweeted   Next, we considered crowdfunding platforms that describe themselves as Christian and researched GiveSendGo at readers' requests. According to the website, which describes itself as the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site," users can organize and run crowdsourcing campaigns for free by using personalized logins and donate to GiveSendGo directly. The website's "About Us" page stated: GiveSendGo GiveSendGo is meant to give Christians the opportunity to be supported by the body of Christ. A place for the body of Christ to get out from their comfortable pews and support people in God's family that they might not have ever known about. [...] A place for Christians. Based on that evidence, it was accurate to claim GiveSendGo describes itself as a website that promotes Christianity. Then we looked for proof of pages supporting Rittenhouse on the platform. A keyword search for "Kyle Rittenhouse" uncovered several pages, including a fundraiser titled "Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense" that had raised more than $314,000 as of this report. Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense It was the most popular and active GiveSendGo campaign created to supposedly help the teen or his family. The page included the following the description: Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA  the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one, as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own. Now, Kyle is being unfairly charged with murder 1, by a DA who seems determined only to capitalize on the political angle of the situation. The situation was clearly self-defense, and Kyle and his family will undoubtedly need money to pay for the legal fees. Let's give back to someone who bravely tried to defend his community. On Aug. 28, 2020, the page's organizers  "Friends of the Rittenhouse family" of Atlanta, Georgia  wrote an update to the page in which they claimed they had spoken with Rittenhouse's mother and legal team and that that party was raising money via multiple methods. The organizers of the GiveSendGo campaign pledged: "All of the money donated ... will go to Kyle's defense, as it is likely to be an expensive and protracted affair."   No specific details on the GiveSendGo page's organizers were known, including how or under what circumstances they started the alleged fundraiser. Anyone can establish a campaign on the site; donors are encouraged to report pages that appear suspicious or fraudulent, and there was no evidence to confirm or deny the organizers of the campaign for Rittenhouse were indeed giving the payments to help his legal defense, aside from the above-described pledge from them. That update also read: Kyle is reportedly in good spirits, and I'm told that the incredible support shown by you good people is what's keeping him going. ... This young man has reinvigorated the faith of many that this country and its founding principles are indeed founded upon the rock, not built upon the sand. However, a city upon a hill cannot be hid; Kyle now faces the wrath of those who would see us stripped of our God-given rights and reduced to servitude. He is in dire need of our help. The GiveSendGo page collected more than 7,330 donations as of this report, some of which included messages of support for Rittenhouse. "This young man is a hero. Give him a medal and make him a millionaire. Every patriot can spare him a few bucks" said an anonymous donor who contributed $10, per the page. Another donor said:   Based on those findings  yes, a self-described Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo was hosting a campaign to supposedly help Rittenhouse  we reached out to the website's administrators to learn under what terms it hosts campaigns on its platform. Jacob Wells, a co-founder of the site, told us via email: GiveSendGo allows campaigns from all kinds of different people and political/religious ideologies. Just because we are Christians does not mean every campaign on our site has to be one or that we agree with its campaign premise. [...] We will withhold judgement and leave that for the courts and God. Our judicial system works on the principle of innocence until proven guilty. As a veteran owned platform we recognize the freedoms we have in the USA came at a very high price and we will not just trample on them to satisfy political correctness. Additionally, he said site administrators were conducting a review of the page involving Rittenhouse to make sure it follows site guidelines, though they "currently believe the campaign is eligible like any other campaigns because it does not violate our terms of service." On Aug. 27 the crowdfunding site posted the following statement to Twitter:  The campaign stoked controversy online among people who believed it wrongfully celebrated the actions of an alleged killer and should be removed from the crowdfunding website. Referring to Blake, who was paralyzed from the waist down after a white police officer shot at his back multiple times on Aug. 23, one Facebook user alleged: paralyzed   In response to those critics, Wells told Snopes: We recognize that we live in a world of diverse ideas and opinions and that part of our strength is in that diversity. We will respond with grace to those that disagree with us. We will give grace to ourselves to not always get it right as we learn and grown. Finally we will give grace to the campaign owner, those that support the campaign, and Kyle as he walk out [sic] the ramifications of his actions. In sum, given how GiveSendGo describes itself  the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site"  as well as evidence of listed donations on a webpage that says it will give all contributions to help fund Rittenhouse's legal defense, we rate this claim  Republicans United.  "Welcome."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. The Associated Press.  "Arizona Student Fundraiser for Kenosha Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse Stirs Outrage."
 Los Angeles Times.  31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "About Us."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "Got Questions?"
  Accessed 31 August 2020. Stone, Michael.  "Christian Crowdfunding Site Raising Money For Kenosha Killer Kyle Rittenhouse."
  Patheos.  28 August 2020. Willis, Haley, et. al. "Tracking The Suspect In The Fatal Kenosha Shootings."
 The New York Times. 27 August 2020. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12). In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. On Jan. 14, 2021, the day after U.S. President Donald Trump was impeached for the second time and a few days before his scheduled departure from the White House, a photograph started circulating online that supposedly showed members of the Trump administration carrying a bust of Abraham Lincoln out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On social media, some people speculated that this item, and other White House artifacts, were being "looted" by the Trump family.  This is a genuine photograph of a statue being carried out of the White House, but it doesn't appear to document any "looting."   At the start of every president's term, the incoming president has the opportunity to work with the White House curator to populate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with various paintings, sculptures, and other artifacts. These items are often loaned to the White House from various museums and galleries. At the end of the president's term, these items are then returned.  White House curator Art.net writes: writes A 1961 act of Congress formalized the White Houses art collection, which now contains about 65,000 objects, if one counts things like utensils and glasses individually. The collection also includes around 500 paintings. When a new president arrives, the White House curators office selects new works for display in public spaces and the West Wing. The works can subtly communicate political priorities as well as personal tastes. President Ronald Reagan reportedly installed a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the cabinet room as a nod to the importance of fiscal conservatism. When she was first lady, Hillary Clinton installed a painting by Georgia OKeeffe in the Green Room. Michelle Obama acquired a bright abstract painting by Alma Thomas, which became the first work by a female African-American artist to enter the White House collection. A new first family can also request art to decorate private spaces. Two paintings by Edward Hopper, for example, hung in the Oval Office during Obamas final term, on loan from the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. The Independent reported that the bust of Lincoln seen in the viral photo was indeed being removed from the White House, but would be returned to a museum: reported A bust of Abraham Lincoln was also ushered out of the West Wing by the staffers  though not because it is a personal item. The statue will be returned to a museum, as incoming officials generally choose their own items from among national artefacts to decorate the White House during their term. We have not been able to independently verify this. However, Stewart McLaurin, the president of the White House Historical Association, said that there was no reason to be concerned about these viral pics. McLaurin said that all of the items on loan to the White House are carefully cataloged by the curator. McLaurin added that members of the Trump administration may have also brought personal items to the White House, which they are allowed to take with them when they leave: Stewart McLaurin Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True. Claim:  Drunk Chairman of the Federal Reserve lets loose in a bar about how bad the U.S. economy truly is.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, August 2011]  Drunken Ben Bernanke Tells Everyone At Neighborhood Bar How Screwed U.S. Economy Really Is SEWARD, NE   Claiming he wasn't afraid to let everyone in attendance know about "the real mess we're in," Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly got drunk Tuesday and told everyone at Elwood's Corner Tavern about how absolutely fucked the U.S. economy actually is. Bernanke, who sources confirmed was "totally sloshed," arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was "pretty goddamned awful if you want the God's honest truth." "Look, they don't want anyone except for the Washington, D.C. bigwigs to know how bad shit really is," said Bernanke, slurring his words as he spoke. "Mounting debt exacerbated  and not relieved  by unchecked consumption, spiraling interest rates, and the grim realities of an inevitable worldwide energy crisis are projected to leave our entire economy in the shitter for, like, a generation, man, I'm telling you." [Remainder of the article here] here  Origins:  If anyone were truly in the know about the state of the U.S. economy, it would be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. However, folks shouldn't give any credence to the story quoted above, because it originates with The Onion, an American news satire organization that has been publishing spoofs based on current events since the late 1980s. (Long before it had a web presence, The Onion was a newspaper.) Ben Bernanke The Onion Other Onion articles of approximately the same vintage: Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition Despite Danny DeVito A Lot Taller, Thinner In Person DeVito Windows Opened On Both Coasts In Effort To Create Transcontinental Cross-Breeze Windows Barbara "onion peals" Mikkelson Last updated:  4 August 2011 In mid-February 2019, social media users shared a meme containing a fabricated quote seemingly attributed to newly elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York:   We found no record U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez made that remark or said anything that could reasonably be paraphrased as such. The faux quote also encapsulated the mistaken belief that the Democrat representing New York's 14th Congressional District was solely responsible for "chasing" Amazon out and driving them to cancel their plans to establish a second headquarters in that area.  In late 2018, reports emerged that New York state and city officials, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, were aggressively lobbying the Seattle-based, retail-and-delivery giant to open a second headquarters ("HQ2") in New York. But that news also spurred public backlash over New York's proposal to offer $3 billion in publicly funded incentives and subsidies to Amazon. reports $3 billion Although Ocasio-Cortez was a vocal opponent of the HQ2 project, many other local and state legislators and residents were also opposed to the plan. For example, speaking to the crowd at a 14 November 2018 protest, New York City Councilman Jimmy van Bramer criticized the proposal, saying: "When Jeff Bezos needed $3 billion, the governor and the mayor found it sure damn quick. The governor and the mayor conspired secretly to cut a deal with Jeff Bezos to the exclusion of everyone else." criticized Furthermore Long Island City falls into the 12th Congressional district and is represented by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, not Ocasio-Cortez. Criticism of the Amazon deal continued to grow in New York, and after a 30 January 2019 City Council meeting, Curbed New York reported the proverbial welcome mat was gone: "Council members blasted the officials with a laundry list of concerns including Amazons union opposition, its investment in the city, and accusations that city and state officials failed to accurately calculate the costs of bringing the conglomerate to Long Island City." Residents and activists began sharing critical social media posts using the hashtag #noAmazonNYC: Dozens of people here in Queensbridge Houses this morning. People are joining a canvassing blitz against Amazon all across Queens  from Flushing to LIC. Our neighbors are here to let Amazon, our city + state governments know that, QUEENS IS NOT FOR SALE! #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW  PrimedOut NYC (@PrimedOutNYC) February 9, 2019 February 9, 2019  On 14 February 2019, Amazon announced they were no longer planning to build HQ2 in Queens, blaming the decision on "a number of state and local politicians [who] have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City." announced In an op-ed column published a few days later, de Blasio reversed his previous support for the retail giant, slamming their decision to suddenly back out of New York: op-ed column There was a clear path forward. Put simply: If you dont like a small but vocal group of New Yorkers questioning your companys intentions or integrity, prove them wrong. Instead, Amazon proved them right. Just two hours after a meeting with residents and community leaders to move the project forward, the company abruptly canceled it all. Although Ocasio-Cortez made no secret of her opposition to Amazon's opening a location in her district, she was not the only such critic, and it is difficult to imagine such a complex deal would have been scrapped solely because of her opinion. Ultimately, it was a groundswell of opposition from residents and other legislators that "chased" Amazon out of New York. Hess, Abigail.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Amazon Abandoning Its Plans for a New York Headquarters Proves 'Anything Is Possible.'"
  CNBC.  14 February 2019. Giridharadas, Anand.  "The New York Hustle of Amazons Second Headquarters."
  The New Yorker.  17 November 2018. Amazon.  "Update on Plans for New York City Headquarters."
  14 February 2019. Plitt, Amy.  "Amazon HQ2 and NYC: A Timeline of the Botched Deal."
  Curbed New York.  18 February 2019. De Blasio, Bill.  "The Path Amazon Rejected."
  The New York Times.  16 February 2019. Soper, Spencer.  "Amazon Scraps Plan to Build a Headquarters in New York City."
  Bloomberg.  14 February 2019. Updated to note that Long Island City is in the 12th congressional district, which Ocasio-Cortez does not represent.