Did Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan Break Up?
In April 2018, actor Channing Tatum and his wife, actor and dancer Jenna Dewan Tatum, announced plans to separate after nine years of marriage. In an era of celebrity hoaxes, the news was greeted with skepticism by some of our readers. It's true. On 3 April, the pair published a joint statement on their respective Instagram accounts that confirmed their impending separation: Instagram accounts Hey world! So... We have something we would like to share. First off, it feels odd that we have to share this kind of thing with everyone, but it's a consequence of the lives we've chosen to lead, which we also happen to be deeply grateful for. We're living in an incredible moment in time, but it's also a time where truth can easily get distorted into "alternative facts" ;) So we want to share the truth so you know that if you didn't read it here then it's most certainly fiction. We have lovingly chosen to separate as a couple. We fell deeply in love so many years ago and have had a magical journey together. Absolutely nothing has changed about how much we love one another, but love is a beautiful adventure that is taking us on different paths for now. There are no secrets nor salacious events at the root of our decision -- just two best friends realizing it's time to take some space and help each other live the most joyous, fulfilled lives as possible. We are still a family and will always be loving, dedicated parents to Everly. We won't be commenting beyond this, and we thank you all in advance for respecting our family's privacy. Sending lots of love to everyone, Chan&Jenna.   The couple, who starred together in the 2006 movie Step Up, were married in 2009. They have one daughter, Everly, who was born in 2013.  married born Wihlborg, Ulrica. "Inside Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan's Malibu Wedding."
 People. 12 July 2009. Bull, Sarah; Sheridan, Emily. "And Baby Makes Three! Channing Tatum and Wife Jenna Confirm Birth of Daughter Everly."
 Daily Mail. 4 June 2013.
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In January 2022, an image circulated online allegedly alerting Caucasian customers of the fast food chain McDonald's that they would be required to pay an additional fee:   "As an insurance measure, due in part to the recent coup attempt of the Capital (sic) earlier this year, all Caucasian customers are required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction." McDonald's has no such policy, but the image appears to be a variation of a similar internet post. In 2012, a similar image with similar wording circulated online claiming that McDonald's was instituting an additional $1.50 fee on Black customers. claiming Mikkelson, David. "FACT CHECK: Did a McDonalds Impose a Surcharge on African-American Customers to Cover Robbery Insurance? Snopes, 24 Jan. 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/self-insured/. In May 2021, news articles and widely-shared social media posts reported that an Ohio State Senator had been caught driving during an official Zoom video conference, and even used a fake "office" background. Ohio On May 6, Brody Logan, a reporter at the NBC affiliate KSEE in Fresno, California, posted a short video to Twitter, along with the following text: text "This Ohio State Senator thought he was slick, using a Zoom background of his home office while driving... debating a bill for harsher penalties for distracted driving..."      Similarly, Newsweek published an article with the headline "Ohio Senator Uses Zoom Office Background While Driving During Hearing on Distracted Driving Bill." The report went on: Newsweek An Ohio state Republican senator participated in a virtual Zoom meeting regarding distracted driving legislation while using an office background as he drove his vehicle this week. During the 13-minute meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board on Monday, State Senator Andrew Brenner could be seen fiddling with his phone, while also turning his camera on and off as he drove with the office background displayed. Andrew Brenner did drive during the Zoom call, and he did use a fake "office" background. However, the meeting had nothing to do with distracting driving, which was an important component of much of the commentary surrounding the incident, since it provided a significant element of irony. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The incident in question took place during the May 3, 2021 meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board, a body that provides legislative oversight of statewide spending, procurement and investment in Ohio.  body The video can be watched in full on the Ohio Channel website, here.  here When Brenner first appears, he is clearly sitting in a parked car, not wearing a seatbelt:   He disappears from view for a short while, then reappears, this time with his camera zoomed in on his face. Around the 3:30 mark, his background abruptly shifts from his car, to a fake "office":   Brenner then disappears from view again, and when he becomes visible again around one minute later, he can clearly be seen driving the car, with his seatbelt on, and the "office" backdrop still in place:   In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Brenner admitted he was driving during the meeting, but denied being distracted: Columbus Dispatch "I wasn't distracted. I was paying attention to the driving and listening to it (the meeting,)" Brenner said. "I had two meetings that were back to back that were in separate locations. And I've actually been on other calls, numerous calls, while driving. Phone calls for the most part but on video calls, I'm not paying attention to the video. To me, it's like a phone call." On the same day as the Ohio Controlling Board meeting took place, May 3, Republicans in the state house introduced House Bill 283, which would enhance and expand Ohio's existing prohibition against distracted driving and using electronic devices while driving. House Bill 283 However, after watching the full Ohio Controlling Board meeting from that day, as well as checking its agenda, it's clear that none of the participants even mentioned House Bill 283, specifically, or distracted driving more broadly. That particular claim, as made by Newsweek and Logan, was inaccurate.  agenda Claim:  Sylvester Stallone will tackle the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in an upcoming Rambo film.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2001] There is a rumor that Sylvester Stalone is curenty in seclusion writing Rambo IV (ok technically First Blood IV).  It is supposed to be about Rambo (to be played by a younger acter (also part of rumor)) going after Osama Bin Laden or another terrorist.   Origins:  A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, a rumor began to float that  Sylvester Stallone would once again assume the guise of the quintessential American action hero John Rambo to battle terrorists in a film set in Afghanistan (just as the previous Rambo film was).  This rumor seems to have originated with a single-sentence mention in the London Times: Stallone, 55, is at his Miami home working on the script of a fourth Rambo film in which the former Green Beret parachutes into Afghanistan to take on the Taliban. People magazine then picked up on therumor, adding a plot point about Osama bin Laden not mentioned in the Times article: rumor The "Rocky" star, whose box-office performances have been rocky of late, is currently at work in his Miami home on the script for a fourth "Rambo" adventure with an eye to a summer 2002 release, says the Times. In the new story, Rambo parachutes into Afghanistan to battle leaders of the Taliban. A possible storyline would involve the pumped-up hero with the oiled chest capturing terror chief Osama bin Laden alive. (True rumor or not, a summer 2002 release for an action film that wasn't even out of the scripting stage in late 2001 yet sounded a little too ambitious to be feasible.) At the time, talk of a Rambo IV film's being in the offing had occurred on and off for at least ten years, with rumors floating in the summer of 2001 that involved Stallone teaming with Hong Kong action star Jackie Chan: Jackie Chan gets equals billing with Sylvester Stallone in upcoming movie, Rambo IV, where Chan does not get killed off as scripted for originally. Action guy Jackie Chan wants to shed blood, not tears, in the upcoming movie, Rambo IV, with macho man Sylvester Stallone. When    you do get to see the Sylvester Stallone-Jackie Chan movie, Rambo: First Blood IV, An ending that is, where only the bad guys get gutted.  After countless talks of getting together to make a movie, Chan and Stallone are finally putting words into action and will collaborate on the movie, Rambo IV. The hitch was the original script had only Rambo, the bare-bodied, inaudible role made famous by Stallone, left standing.  Chan's character was to be killed off.  In line with all his movies where no good guy dies, the 45-year-old Chan, who is now Tinseltown's IT man with such hits as Shanghai Noon and Rush Hour, has requested that the script be changed.  Then he gets to stand tall with Stallone in the end. Back in March 2001, Miramax chairman Bob Weinstein had mentioned the possibility of a Rambo IV, but with a different plot and not necessarily starring Stallone: Miramax chairman Bob Weinstein says Rambo IV is in the stages for a e-script this summer  with at least a $50 million budget. Weinstein says, "We'd love nothing more than for Stallone to be involved. We think it's a billion-dollar property." The new script involves Rambo tackling drug dealers in an American government building. And earlier in 2001, Stallone himself had said that he didn't think he'd be playing the Rambo character ever again: I don't know if I'd look good in a thong anymore.  In my fantasies, I'd love to do one more [Rambo film], but I don't think it would be in good taste at this age. Whatever conceptions may have been mooted for a fourth Rambo film over the years, it ultimately didn't come out until early 2008, it wasn't set in Afghanistan, and the title character battled neither the Taliban nor Osama bin Laden: instead, the fourth entry in the series (entitled simply Rambo, once  again starring Sylvester Stallone) was set in Thailand and featured John Rambo leading a group of mercenaries to rescue Christian aid workers held captive in the war-torn Thailand-Myanmar border region. In August 2009, Variety reported that a fifth Rambo installment was in the works, with Sylvester Stallone starring and directing in a production slated to begin in Spring 2010. That putative film also has no connection to Afghanistan, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden; Variety describes the plotline as "revolving around Rambo fighting his way through human traffickers and drug lords to rescue a young girl abducted near the U.S.-Mexico border." Last updated:  8 September 2009   Hoffman, Bill.  "Rambo vs. Osama: Stallone Script in Works."  New York Post.  12 November 2001.   McNary, Dave.  "Stallone Readies for Fifth 'Rambo.'"  Variety.  30 August 2009.   Silverman, Stephen M.  "Sly Stallone: Rambo to the Rescue."  People.  12 November 2001.   The [Singapore] Straits Times.  "Jackie vs. Rambo."    24 August 2000. Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. Even before the Florida House adjourned early, Speaker Steve Crisafulli laid blame for the sessions budget impasse clearly on Medicaid expansion. In an essayprinted by theTampa Bay Times, Crisafulli wrote the Senate had partnered with the Obama administration to demand the expansion. But the House believed the move would drag people into a costly system that didnt work. Under federal law, other low-income Floridians have access to health care subsidies to buy private insurance for less than the average cost of a wireless phone bill, said Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island. In fact, if we choose Obamacare expansion, 600,000 will lose eligibility for their subsidies, of which 257,000 would be forced into Medicaid. Estimates say the expansion would cover more than 800,000 people, many of whom are currently uninsured. We wondered where Crisafulli was getting his numbers. Playing percentages This subject can make heads spin pretty easily, so before we begin, lets review a few basics about the Affordable Care Act. The laws intent was to expand coverage to the uninsured through two different ways. The first was to give subsidies to people who needed help to buy insurance through HealthCare.gov or a new state marketplace. The second way was to expand Medicaid, a state-federal insurance program for the very poor. Medicaid expansion ended up being optional for the states, thanks to a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. This is what the Florida House and Senate are arguing about. The Senate wants to expand Medicaid so that recipients end up buying heavily subsidized insurance. The House doesnt want to expand Medicaid at all. Crisafullis numbers are based on how many Floridians would qualify for the expansion, which would be extended to all adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (100 percent is currently$11,770 for an individual and $24,250 for a family of four). Technically the calculation is actually 133 percent under the law, but a 5 percent deduction is added on top of that. If a state doesnt expand Medicaid, people who make 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level can get subsidies to buy insurance in a marketplace. These are the subsidies Crisafulli is talking about. But if you qualify for Medicaid, youre not eligible for help paying premiums. His argument is that if the state extends the program, the people between 100 and 133 percent of the federal poverty level (hes not citing the full 138, youll note) will lose their subsidies to buy policies, and the House simply wont let that happen. Crisafulli is using 2015-16 fiscal year estimates by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, which we examined ourselves. That projection says there are about 609,000 people in the 100 to 133 percent of poverty level range, and a little more than 351,000 of them have insurance of some kind. They get it through employers, Medicare or some other form of government assistance program, or buy insurance on their own (subsidized or not). Those people could enroll in Medicaid if they wanted to. More than 257,000 have no insurance at all, and these are the ones Crisafulli is saying will be forced into Medicaid. His office confirmed he meant they will be left without subsidies and will not make enough money to buy policies, so Medicaid will be their only option. What it means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and health policy experts largely agreed the numbers were plausible, but there are some points they said Crisafulli is sidestepping. Foremost is the idea that 257,000 people would be forced to join the program. There is no law that says you have to use Medicaid if you qualify, and not everyone who is currently eligible enrolls. Ben Sommers, a health policy and economics professor at Harvard, said its pretty tough for Crisafulli to imply those quarter-million people would be upset by suddenly qualifying for Medicaid. Giving uninsured people Medicaid is pretty popular among uninsured people, Sommers said. There arent any public opinion surveys Ive seen in which low-income adults dont generally support the Medicaid expansion. Crisafulli neglects to mention there are many Floridians who right nowdont qualify for either Medicaid or federal subsidies, an estimated 669,000 people whose income is below 100 percent of federal poverty level. Those uninsured Floridians account for 18 percent of all Americans in the so-called coverage gap -- second only to Texas. They would all benefit from Medicaid expansion by gaining coverage. Finally, Crisafulli is arguing that expanding Medicaid under Obamacare would unfairly take away subsidies that Floridians need to buy their own insurance. Those subsidies are a feature of the very same Affordable Care Act he criticizes. Our ruling Crisafulli said, If we choose Obamacare expansion, 600,000 will lose eligibility for their subsidies, of which 257,000 would be forced into Medicaid. Crisafulli is using incendiary language to describe state projections about Medicaid expansion. The state estimates that about 609,000 Floridians would lose access to subsidies to buy insurance under an expansion. About 257,000 of those people would be uninsured, likely because theyre too poor to buy their own. The rest could enroll in Medicaid if they wanted to. So his numbers can be considered accurate. But experts tell us saying those people would beforcedinto the program isnt accurate. Many of the very poor would likely see becoming eligible for Medicaid as a benefit. We rate the statement Mostly True. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed. Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020.