Fact Checking | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
[ad_1]
This page hosts daily news stories about the media, social media, and the journalism industry. Get the latest Hirings and Firings, Media Transactions, Controversies, Censorship…
The post Media News Daily: Top Stories for 02/05/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
[ad_1]
Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers that are either a signatory of the International…
The post MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 02/05/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
[ad_1]
Musician Kid Rock sang “I like ’em underage” and “some say that’s statutory” in the song “Cool, Daddy Cool.”
In early February 2026, online users shared a rumor claiming that, decades earlier, musician Kid Rock released a song with lyrics that included “I like ’em underage” and “some say that’s statutory but I say it’s mandatory.” Users claimed the lyrics appeared in the song “Cool, Daddy Cool,” which was used in the 2001 part-animation, part-live-action film “Osmosis Jones.”
The claim circulated in the days after Turning Point USA announced (archived) Kid Rock would perform in the conservative organization’s “All-American Halftime Show,” an event competing with the Super Bowl’s official halftime performance, which was set to be headlined by Spanish-language rapper Bad Bunny.
For example, on Feb. 3, a Threads user posted (archived) the lyrics with references to both halftime shows. The post read:
If you translate Bad Bunny’s lyrics to English, he really isn’t an appropriate pick to headline the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
“Young ladies, young ladies, I like ’em underage. See, some say that’s statutory, but I say it’s mandatory.”
Oh wait..my bad. That’s actually Kid Rock, headliner of the MAGA ‘Christian’ halftime show. So that tracks.
(@falynmarie/Threads)
Users also shared the claim on Facebook (archived), Instagram (archived), Threads (archived) and X (archived).
In short, Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, truly released a song with those lyrics, though another performer sang part of the lyrics.
The song, “Cool, Daddy Cool,” appeared on the “Osmosis Jones” soundtrack and is available on Spotify and YouTube. The track list on the soundtrack’s CD case credits the song to “Kid Rock featuring Joe C.” — a rapper whose real name was Joseph Calleja and who died in November 2000.
The movie itself, which was free for U.S. viewers via the Tubi streaming service, featured only part of the song and did not include the “underage” and “statutory” lines. The relevant scene begins around the 51:30 mark in the movie.
The movie’s credits (at 1:34:26) say the song was written by Kid Rock (listed as Ritchie), Bob Crewe and Frank Slay Jr.
Snopes contacted the Creative Artists Agency to ask if a representative for Kid Rock wished to comment on the lyrics. We also emailed Turning Point USA to ask if the organization had a response to users sharing the claim and will update this article if we receive further information.
Song-lyric website Genius published a transcription of “Cool, Daddy Cool,” noting which parts Kid Rock and Joe C. sang.
The third verse features the “underage” and “statutory” lines (emphasis ours):
Now, some people say my mind’s blown, I’m coolin’ like a snow cone
On my cell phone I’m paid, G, can’t call me, just page me
Young ladies, young ladies, I like ’em underage, see
Some say that’s statutory (But I say it’s mandatory)
My story ain’t that complex, two forties and a Rolex
I rip, I rock, I roll, G, I trim my hair with the Flowbee
Got soul, G, like Al Green, co-coolin’ like the A-Team
From Maine to San Francisco, I’m shootin’ like a pistol
I’m so slick, I’m Crisco, daddy likes to disco
The website noted with italics that Joe C. sang the “but I say it’s mandatory” response to the “statutory” lyric sung by Kid Rock.
IMDb.com published the plot for “Osmosis Jones” — directed by brothers Bobby and Peter Farrelly — as follows: “A policeman white blood cell, with the help of a cold pill, must stop a deadly virus from destroying Frank, the person they live in.”
For the movie and soundtrack, Kid Rock provided the singing voice for an animated lime-green germ performing with a band of germs named Kidney Rock. The band sang “Cool, Daddy Cool” in a club named “The Zit.” Kid Rock’s character, who the film’s creators left unnamed in the credits, featured attire somewhat similar to that worn by Kid Rock, including a fedora.
The satirical publication The Onion highlighted (archived) the song in April 2025 with the headline, “Trump Pardons Kid Rock For Whatever Inspired Statutory Rape Lyric In ‘Cool, Daddy Cool.’”
For further reading, we previously reported about a rumor that Kid Rock banned vendors from selling Bud Light at his concerts.
[ad_2]
Jordan Liles
Source link
[ad_1]
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro caused a stir among Second Amendment supporters when she talked about a gun crackdown during a Fox News appearance.
Referring to the city’s recent decline in homicides, Pirro said:
“You bring a gun into the district, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail and hope you get the gun back.”
U.S. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said Feb. 2 that he has a license to carry a firearm in Florida and Washington, D.C., and brings “a gun into the district every week.” The National Association for Gun Rights criticized Pirro for “threatening to arrest people for carrying in DC, even if they are law-abiding and licensed.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote Feb. 3, “Second Amendment rights are not extinguished just because an American visits DC.”
Pirro sought to clarify her position in follow-up social media posts Feb. 3, describing herself as a “proud supporter of the Second Amendment.” Washington, D.C., law requires handguns carried into the city be licensed with district police, she said.
“We are focused on individuals who are unlawfully carrying guns and will continue building on that momentum to keep our communities safe,” Pirro said.
Pirro’s Feb. 2 comments oversimplified the district’s gun laws. People can legally possess firearms by registering their weapons in the district, and obtaining a Washington, D.C., concealed carry permit would allow them to legally carry it outside their homes and places of business. The district does not recognize other states’ firearm registrations, but people can lawfully transport firearms through the district if they follow certain rules.
Washington, D.C., has historically had strict gun regulations. The district had essentially banned handguns for about 30 years until 2008, when a Supreme Court decision overturned the rule.
Registering firearms with the Metropolitan Police Department is required to legally possess a gun in the district, which allows most people to register rifles, shotguns, revolvers and handguns.
Firearm registration is required for most gun owners, including district residents, business owners and both residents and nonresidents with concealed carry licenses.
The Metropolitan Police Department says people are eligible to register firearms if they meet certain requirements, including:
Being 21 or older (or 18 or older with a notarized statement from a guardian);
Completing the department’s free firearms training and safety class;
Having no convictions for certain weapons offenses;
Having no felony convictions;
And having no indictments for weapons offenses or violent crimes.
Government-issued service weapons do not have to be registered. Some people, including qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and on-duty active military members, are not required to register their firearms.
Firearm registration allows a person “to possess, but not carry, the gun,” said Andrew Willinger, a Georgia State University law professor and gun regulation expert.
Some weapons are ineligible to be registered, including: sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, .50 caliber BMG rifles and assault weapons.
Openly carrying firearms is generally prohibited; people with valid firearm registrations can carry their firearms in their homes or places of business. They also can use their firearms for lawful recreational purposes — such as at firearms training, safety classes or at a gun range — and transport them within legal limits.
People age 21 and older who are eligible to register firearms and meet additional requirements can get a Washington D.C. concealed carry license if they complete required training.
Neither residents nor nonresidents are allowed to carry concealed guns in the district without this license.
There are some exceptions, including for qualified current and retired law enforcement officers.
Licensees cannot carry firearms in schools, hospitals, polling places, public transportation, government buildings and other specific locations.
In August 2025, Pirro’s office announced it would stop pursuing felony charges for carrying rifles or shotguns.
Yes, nonresidents can obtain concealed carry licenses — and they need licenses to legally carry their firearms.
“If a nonresident brings a gun into D.C. and does not have a D.C. permit, that is unlawful regardless of whether the gunowner is licensed in his or her state of residence or law-abiding,” Willinger said in an email.
Yes, under certain conditions.
Under federal law, it is generally legal for people to transport guns from one state where they can be lawfully possessed to another state where they can be lawfully possessed. People do not have to comply with gun laws in each state they pass through, as long as the firearm is not loaded or readily accessible, Willinger said.
In the district, nonresidents without a Washington, D.C., concealed carry license can bring firearms in vehicles as long as they are unloaded and as long as the firearms and ammunition are not readily accessible. If transporting firearms in ways other than in vehicles, they must be unloaded and stored in locked containers.
If a nonresident travels through the district with a firearm that isn’t registered in Washington, D.C., they should go straight to and from their destination.
Nonresidents traveling to or from a lawful recreational firearm-related activity don’t need to register their firearm, so long as they can present proof that they legally possess their firearm in their home state and that they are on the way to or from that activity.
RELATED: Trump said Washington, DC, ‘always’ has ‘a murder a week.’ That’s wrong
RELATED: How does Washington, D.C.’s homicide rate compare with other countries?
RELATED: Crime is underreported, but not just in Washington, D.C., where Trump claims data is inaccurate
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The U.S. Department of Justice’s documents released in January 2026 pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein reference cannibalism and accuse Epstein, or his inner circle, of engaging in “ritualistic sacrifice.”
Snopes verified that the DOJ’s trove of documents released on Jan. 30, 2026, contain such allegations and references. We did not investigate the legitimacy of the accusations themselves. The allegations, in part, stemmed from a purported interview between FBI officials and an anonymous man in 2019. They were unsupported by any credible evidence.
Editor’s note: This article contains graphic descriptions of violent conduct.
In February 2026, after the U.S. Department of Justice released more than 3 million files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a claim (archived) circulated online that the files reference cannibalism and accuse Epstein or his inner social circle of engaging in “ritualistic sacrifice.”
Posts on Facebook (archived), Instagram (archived), Threads (archived) and Bluesky (archived) spread the allegations. Snopes readers contacted us and searched our website for more information, using phrases such as “evidence of cannibalism in the Epstein
(Facebook user JAN Writer)
The allegations of “ritualistic sacrifice” appear in documents summarizing a purported interview between FBI officials and an anonymous man in 2019. The man claimed he witnessed “ritualistic sacrifice” and “babies being dismembered” on a yacht belonging to Epstein in 2000. According to the DOJ records, the man did not provide evidence to support his allegations.
In the alleged interview, the man did not mention cannibalism (he did mention the consumption of human feces), according to the documents. However, the phrases “cannibal” or “cannibalism” appear elsewhere in the files released by the DOJ January 2026.
The allegations against Epstein and his inner circle were unsupported by any credible evidence.
The man’s unsubstantiated allegations of “ritualistic sacrifice” appeared in an email exchange between an apparent FBI agent and New York police detective, per the DOJ’s records (the file name is “EFTA00147661” (archived)).
The email exchange summarizes the alleged interview with the man, someone the messages call a “purported victim” of Epstein’s crimes.
According to that summary, the man accused prominent people including Epstein of sexually assaulting him on a yacht in 2000. The emails said the man claimed he:
…
was a victim of a type of ritualistic sacrifice in which his feet were cut with a scimitar but left no scarring. On the yacht he witnessed babies being dismembered, their intestines removed, and individuals eating the feces from these intestines.
The interview appears again in the DOJ’s documents, in a more formal summary of the same interview with the man (that file name is “EFTA01246048” (archived)). According to that file, the accuser also claimed a handful of former presidents “were present on the same yacht while all of the aforementioned acts of violence were occurring.”
Both files said the man did not provide supporting or corroborating evidence for his allegations. In “EFTA00147661,” one agent concluded, “At this
When we asked the FBI why it did not pursue an investigation into the man’s claims, an FBI spokesperson responded via email: “Thank you for reaching out. Unfortunately, we don’t have a comment.”
Also, according to the DOJ’s files, a former FBI special agent and Michael Moore — a former journalist whom Buzzfeed and Zachary Ellwood, an independent investigator, identified as the person behind True Pundit, a far-right conspiracy website — referred the man to the FBI for the interview.
No further details about the interview or man were available.
A search of the DOJ’s “Epstein Library” — a trove of more than 3 million documents released in batches since late 2025 — revealed 52 instances of the word “cannibal” and six instances of “cannibalism.”
Snopes has reported extensively on claims related to the Epstein files, including the fact that they contain an unverified tip to the FBI about President Donald Trump allegedly witnessing the murder of a newborn.
[ad_2]
Laerke Christensen
Source link
[ad_1]
Many people start their day with a cup of coffee. But recently, some TikTok users encouraged drinking hot water in the morning instead to help with digestion.
Alternative medicine practices like traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, which originated in India and Nepal, have long encouraged hot water drinking.
As the warm-water wave has swept the U.S., several TikTok users report that the morning ritual leads to more regular bowel movements and feeling less bloated.
Should you turn on the kettle after you wake up? Water almost any time is good. But we took a closer look at the science behind this latest trend.
For most healthy adults: Yes!
Just make sure the water is not so hot that it burns. Plus, drinking extremely hot water, above 149 degrees Fahrenheit, may raise the risk of esophageal cancer, according to the World Health Organization.
If warm water makes you feel more relaxed or regular, then go for it. Linking water consumption to a routine can help you remember to stay well-hydrated, but experts said that drinking warm water should not be a substitute for medical care.
Experts also warn some people may react poorly to warm water. Grace Derocha, a registered dietitian nutritionist and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said that for people with acid reflux, gastroparesis, or temperature sensitivity, warm water may worsen symptoms — while others may find it soothing.
Staying hydrated helps digestive systems function properly. Drinking water regularly (hot or cold) can soften stools, support nutrient absorption, and help waste move through the bowels.
It’s not surprising that a morning water routine can aid in the bathroom.
Water is also essential for the rest of your body’s processes. It improves skin, gets rid of waste and toxins, moves nutrients into cells, protects joints, and regulates body temperature.
But drinking water is beneficial regardless of its temperature.
“The ‘best’ water is the one you will actually drink consistently,” Derocha said.
Experts we spoke with said there is limited research showing that warm water is superior to cold water for digestion.
“A few small studies suggest warm liquids may slightly speed gastric emptying compared to cold liquids, particularly after surgery,” Derocha said. But these findings should not be generalized to everyday digestion.
Dr. David Leiman, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, said there is some evidence that warmer liquids may speed up food moving through the esophagus and “potentially reduce some esophageal symptoms, though the mechanism for this is not clearly understood.”
Warm water may make people feel more relaxed, which can help with digestion, but most of our digestive processes — like enzyme secretion, bile release and nutrient absorption — are tightly regulated by the body and not dictated by beverage temperature, she said.
Plus, cold water doesn’t stay cold for long. Soon after cold water enters the body, it quickly warms to body temperature.
Water temperature may not have a huge impact on digestion, but it can make a difference for other ailments, such as soothing a sore throat or clearing a stuffy nose.
This trend isn’t dangerous, and for some people may be helpful, but several TikTok videos overstate what warm water has the power to do.
Some videos claim that drinking hot water can “melt fat.” Fat digestion happens because of bile and enzymes in our digestive system, not heat.
Other videos say that warm water activates digestive enzymes. But those digestive enzymes work best at the body’s natural temperature, 98.6 degrees.
We also saw TikTok videos that said warm water is a good way to “detox.” Healthy bodies have a fantastic built-in detox system managed by the liver, kidneys, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Hydration is important for the functioning of those systems, but the temperature of the water does not matter.
“The benefits people report are real, but they are more likely due to hydration, routine, and physiology than water temperature itself,” Derocha said.
Not all viral trends are safe to try (remember 2017’s Tide Pod eating challenge?), but this one is.
Derocha advises pairing fluids “with fiber-rich foods, movement, and regular meals for digestive health.” If you continue to experience bad digestive symptoms, discuss them with your doctor.
“If interested, try it. It will do no harm for healthy people,” said Kantha Shelke, a food scientist and Johns Hopkins University senior lecturer. “Do not expect ‘detoxification’ or metabolic miracles. Listen to your body; if cold water bothers you, choose warm.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
A federal agent in Minnesota grabbed a woman’s phone as it recorded him approaching her Jan. 9, two days after a federal agent shot a U.S. citizen. “Have y’all not learned from the past couple of days?” the agent asked the woman.
Weeks later in Maine, a woman let her phone camera roll as an agent filmed her license plate and told her her name would be added to a database and she was now considered a domestic terrorist.
“For videotaping you?” the woman asked. “Are you crazy?”
And on Jan. 29, a Minnesota driver with a dash cam filmed masked immigration agents as they swerved in front of her car, got out of their vehicle and pulled their guns.
What are the rules around filming immigration agents in public?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz encouraged the state’s residents to record agents to create a record of evidence. Bystanders’ video footage has been critical in painting fuller pictures of what happened in agent’s confrontations with civilians, including the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is overseeing the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, said recording on-duty immigration agents is an act of violence. The department’s spokesperson also called videoing officers “doxing,” a “federal crime and a felony.”
After immigration agents fatally shot Pretti, bystander video from multiple angles challenged Noem’s statements that Pretti had brandished his gun at immigration agents before he was killed.
The incidents reveal tension between the public’s First Amendment protections and what law enforcement officers see as obstruction.
A federal judge in January ruled against DHS’ attempt to dismiss a case brought by journalists who say the department infringed on their constitutional rights while they were covering immigration enforcement in California. The judge said the journalists had established that DHS has a policy considering filming immigration agents as unlawful civil unrest.
We spoke to five legal experts about bystanders’ rights when recording immigration agents.
“Knowing your rights is paramount. Reminding officers of your rights is important. Standing on your rights is a personal decision,” Kevin Goldberg, vice president at Freedom Forum, a First Amendment rights advocacy group, said.
Federal Bureau of Prisons officers threaten Associated Press video journalist Mark Vancleave with arrest on Jan. 28, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP)
Yes. Recording in public is allowed under the First Amendment.
A few states require bystanders to stay a certain distance away from first responders. For example, under Florida’s Halo Law, people are required to stay at least 25 feet away from law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical responders.
Some buffer-zone laws, such as one in Indiana, have been struck down in federal courts.
Even though it’s legal to record law enforcement officers in public, it is not legal to obstruct their activities.
Obstructing law enforcement generally requires physical action under federal law, legal experts said, such as standing between an officer and the person they’re trying to arrest. An obstruction must impede officers from carrying out their duties, which is why filming or yelling doesn’t count, Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, said.
Immigration agents have accused several bystanders who record them of obstruction.
In many cases agents approach people who are in their cars recording agents. Agents tell the bystanders that this is their one warning and if they continue to follow the agent they will be arrested for obstructing.
Goldberg said, “Holding up a camera at an appropriate distance and filming should not inhibit any law enforcement officials from doing their jobs unless they think they’re doing something wrong.”
A federal judge ruled Jan. 16 that following federal agents “at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.”
An appeals court temporarily paused that order.
“Following a police car or ICE vehicle on a public road is not obstructing,” Jessica West, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said. “Blocking a car in to prevent it from moving in the direction it was headed, might be considered obstructing.”
Moran agreed, she said the only way following an ICE officer could rise to the level of obstruction would be if a person yelled threats at an officer or drove so close to them “that the agents reasonably believed they were in danger of getting hit.”
People’s rights to observe and record law enforcement officers don’t change when someone is in a car, Goldberg said. However, because cars take up more space they can increase the likelihood of an obstruction in small spaces.
“People are allowed to drive cars on public roads. People are allowed to film from public spaces. But all rules of the road must be followed,” Goldberg said.
Federal agent brandishing a firearm approaches activists for following agent vehicles Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP)
The decision about whether someone is obstructing law enforcement can be subjective.
First, a law enforcement officer must determine that there is probable cause — meaning, it’s more likely than not — that someone physically obstructed their actions, West said. Once that’s determined, the officer can make an arrest.
A judge or a grand jury reviews the evidence and decides whether to charge the person. If charged, a judge or jury decides whether to convict.
“Courts have given a lot of deference to law enforcement officials and so that is something that anyone who’s recording should be aware of,” Goldberg said.
However, several grand juries have recently refused to indict cases related to impeding or assaulting immigration officers. Other cases have been dismissed.
Immigration agents cannot legally compel somebody to stop recording so long as the person is not obstructing their work. They may tell observers to step back for safety reasons.
There have been recent cases of agents acting unconstitutionally by yelling at people to stop recording or knocking phones out of people’s hands.
“It can be scary to maintain your rights when an agent is threatening you so ultimately it is the choice of the person recording whether to continue doing that and risk retaliation by the government,” Moran said.
Agents also can’t take phones without arresting people.
“It is a violation of civil rights to confiscate someone’s phone or other recording device if they are merely recording and not actively interfering with or obstructing law enforcement activities,” Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William and Mary, said.
Legal experts recommend disabling Face ID as that might make it easier for officers to unlock a phone.
To search a person’s phone, agents need a warrant signed by a judge.
Homeland Security officials have said that recording immigration agents is a form of doxing, which means publicly identifying or publishing private information about a person, especially as a form of punishment or revenge. (However, DHS’s social media profiles include several videos and photos of immigration agents conducting enforcement operations.)
Legal experts agreed that recording an immigration agent in public is not considered doxing.
“It is not doxing to film something that is happening in public, even though somebody would rather not have that information public,” Goldberg said. “Even if someone is masked to hide their identity.”
Doxing often refers to publishing personal information, such as home or email addresses, phone numbers or private financial information, without someone’s consent.
Some states have anti-doxing laws that hinge on whether there was an intention to harass or harm someone.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
In August 2025, a tractor-trailer driver attempted to make an illegal U-turn on Florida’s Turnpike, killing three people.
The driver, Harjinder Singh, an immigrant in the U.S. illegally who received his commercial driver’s license in California, failed an English proficiency test after the crash, state officials said.
The incident prompted outcry from some Florida politicians who said people who don’t read English should not be allowed to get driver’s licenses.
Now, the Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles says that all Florida driver’s license written and oral exams will be administered only in English — without the option of an interpreter or translator — starting Feb. 6. The change applies to all driver license classifications.
Florida is a multilingual state. Around 30% of its residents over age 5 speak a language other than English at home, U.S. Census data shows. And 35% of naturalized citizens in the state say they have limited English proficiency, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
“Good reform by (Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) to require driver exams be conducted only in English,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said of the new policy Jan. 31 on X. “Need to be able to read the road signs!”
Nikki Fried, the state’s former agriculture commissioner and current chair of the Florida Democrats, criticized the change.
“In one of the most multilingual states in the country, Florida is going to implement driver’s license exams exclusively in English,” Fried posted Jan. 30 on X. “This is not about safety, this is about racism.”
DeSantis and other proponents of the new policy say it will make Florida roadways safer by ensuring drivers can read English-language road signs. The federal government has also enacted new rules on English proficiency for commercial licenses.
We found no academic papers or government reports showing that taking a drivers license test in a foreign language results in drivers who pose a unique threat on the road. Driving safety experts also told us they are unaware of any such studies.
We contacted Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about the safety evidence behind the policy shift and received no reply to that question by the time of publication.
When we contacted DeSantis’ office, a spokesperson pointed us to his Jan. 31 X post and also noted traffic fatalities, including those caused by Singh, involving drivers who weren’t proficient in English.
Experts said the effect of Florida’s policy on overall road safety may be small because traffic signs typically prioritize universal symbols rather than words.
“The standard iconography and signage used across the country is meant to be easily recognizable and understandable for drivers, and so it’s unlikely that a language barrier would make a big difference in one’s understanding of this signage,” said Joe Young, spokesperson for Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit funded by auto insurance companies that aims to reduce motor vehicle crashes.
“In cases where words are used,” Young said, “my understanding is that there’s a deliberate effort to keep phrases short and ensure letters are large enough to be easily understood.” Words and symbols are often combined, something called “dual coding,” to ensure drivers understand the information quickly.
Strict policies such as Florida’s may also discourage people who aren’t proficient in English from getting licenses, experts said, which could result in more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road.
A driver must pass three tests to get a Florida driver’s license: a multiple choice test on traffic laws, road signs and safe driving; a driving test and a vision test.
Exams for most noncommercial driver’s license classifications were previously offered in multiple languages, the Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles said. Commercial learner’s permit and driver’s license exams were offered in English and Spanish.
Only a handful of states offer the exams in English only, the Tampa Bay Times reported, including Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Many states that allow multiple languages for the knowledge exam specify that people must understand roadway signs in English to pass, with some offering separate testing for traffic signs where applicants identify signs by color and shape and provide an explanation of each.
PolitiFact found no conclusive, large-scale studies measuring whether people who take driving exams in a foreign language pose a higher risk on the road.
Multiple safety data experts, including from the National Safety Council, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Safety told us they are not aware of any such research.
Most traffic safety research has found that age, experience and behavior, such as distracted or impaired driving, are the strongest predictors of risk.
One Jan. 28 research paper looked at challenges international drivers transitioning into the U.S. traffic system might face.
It found that drivers who are translating in real time face increased mental demand and can experience slower reaction times. The paper recommended that traffic education move away from being text-dominant and monolingual and toward being more visually adaptive.
Young, from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said states can take proven steps to reduce crashes among newly licensed drivers, including requiring more practice hours, increasing the age of licensure and imposing passenger and nighttime driving restrictions.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which develops model programs in motor vehicle administration, law enforcement and highway safety, has guidelines for state noncommercial exams.
Those guidelines say a person’s inability to read or speak English “is not necessarily a barrier to proper motor vehicle operation” as long as the driver meets the knowledge requirements and is “able to interpret highway signs, signals and markings.” It is the responsibility of the licensing agency, the organization says, to ensure these conditions are met before issuing a license.
When non-English speakers are unable to pass licensing exams, the guidelines say, they may be more likely to seek a license fraudulently or operate a vehicle without one.
“Steps taken to accommodate the needs of foreign-speaking applicants will help prevent unqualified drivers from threatening the safety and mobility of the motoring public,” the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators guidelines say.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
An image authentically shows convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein posing with twin brothers who would later form the Island Boys hip-hop duo.
On Feb. 2, 2026, an X user posted (archived) an image purportedly showing convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein posing for a years-old photo with the Island Boys hip-hop duo. The image allegedly showed Epstein with his arms around two boys internet users said were Alex Venegas, known as “Flyysoulja,” and his twin brother Franky Venegas, who goes by “Kodiyakredd.” Facebook users posted the image, as well.
The user’s post, which circulated following a fresh release of Epstein case files, read, “It all makes sense now.” The post displayed a single image comprised of four total images, including the Epstein image and several photos of the Venegas brothers.
(@klara_sjo/X)
In short, the Epstein photo was fake and created with the generative-AI platform Midjourney. It was first posted (archived) in March 2023 by an Instagram user with “AI” in their handle.
In 2023, TMZ reported Alex Venegas confirmed the image did not picture him with his brother. Investigative X user @hoaxeye debunked the matter, as well. Snopes contacted Alex Venegas via a TikTok private message to independently obtain the same information and will update this article if we receive a response.
The Venegas brothers first rose to a level of TikTok notoreity in 2021, singing, “I’m an Island Boy.”
We sourced reporting for this article from Know Your Meme, Reuters and the fact-checkers with the Italian Open publication.
Instagram user @aiartistking posted (archived) the original, uncropped image as part of a two-image slideshow on March 25, 2023. The user’s handle, reading as “AI Artist King,” provided the first hint the user generated their content with AI tools.
The post’s text caption featured the hashtags “#midjourney,” “#midjourneyai” and “#midjourneyv5,” identifying the user created the picture with Midjourney. That original, high-quality version of the image — when viewed directly on Instagram — showed skin that appeared smooth and shiny on all five subjects, a characteristic consistent with AI creations.
(@aiartistking/Instagram)
The second AI-generated image in the slideshow showed Epstein posing with five boys. The image displayed the text “Epstein Island,” referencing Epstein’s Little St. James Island in the Caribbean Sea. When closely viewed directly on Instagram, Epstein’s mouth and some of the boys’ faces had deformities — another sign of AI.
(@aiartistking/Instagram)
The user @aiartistking hadn’t posted any new content since 2023, and their profile did not contain external contact information.
Social media users reposted the AI-generated image of Epstein and the four boys in the weeks and months following the initial March 2023 Instagram post.
For further reading, we previously reported about whether Epstein truly owned a painting of former U.S. President Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress.
Emery, David, and Jessica Lee. “4 Tips for Spotting AI-Generated Pics.” Snopes, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464595/artificial-intelligence-media-literacy/.
Groh, Matthew, et al. “5 Telltale Signs That a Photo Is AI-Generated.” Kellogg Insight, 9 Sept. 2024, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/ai-photos-identification.
Hamilton, Phillip. “Island Boys Epstein Island Photo.” Know Your Meme, 30 May 2023, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/island-boys-epstein-island-photo.
@hoaxeye. “On the Left: AI Generated Picture of Jeffrey Epstein…” X, 29 May 2023, https://x.com/hoaxeye/status/1663238245130305557.
Noto, Antonio Di. “No! Questa non è una fotografia di Epstein con le sue vittime. Creata con l’Intelligenza Artificiale.” Open, 14 Apr. 2023, https://www.open.online/2023/04/14/foto-epstein-vittime-ai-fc/.
Reuters Fact Check. “Fact Check: No Evidence Online Image Shows Jeffrey Epstein with Musical Duo Island Boys.” Reuters, 2 June 2023, https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/no-evidence-online-image-shows-jeffrey-epstein-with-musical-duo-island-boys-idUSL1N37U2A2/.
T. M. Z. Staff. “Island Boys Say They’ve Never Met Jeffrey Epstein, Kids In Viral Photo Aren’t Them.” TMZ, 31 May 2023, https://www.tmz.com/2023/05/31/island-boys-jeffrey-epstein-viral-photo-conspiracy-debunked/.
[ad_1]
This page hosts daily news stories about the media, social media, and the journalism industry. Get the latest Hirings and Firings, Media Transactions, Controversies, Censorship…
The post Media News Daily: Top Stories for 02/04/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
[ad_1]
Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers that are either a signatory of the International…
The post MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 02/04/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
[ad_1]
An image circulated online in February 2026 authentically shows Reform UK leader Nigel Farage with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Following the U.S. Department of Justice’s Jan. 30, 2026, release of more than 3 million files related to the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, social media users spread an image appearing to show Reform UK leader Nigel Farage with the sex offender.
The image circulated on X and Threads.
However, a Google search found no reputable news outlets reporting on an image of Farage with Epstein, and if the image was real, it would almost certainly be considered newsworthy. Additional searches returned no credible reports that Farage and Epstein ever met in person or had a direct relationship. The picture also bore several signs of the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Thus, we have rated the image as fake.
A reverse image search could not determine who created the picture.
Reverse image searches found no trace of the photo online before the DOJ’s Epstein files release on Jan. 30, 2026. However, there was also no indication that the image came from the release, as it did not appear in searches for Farage’s name in the files.
The DOJ search can be unreliable, particularly for images and handwritten text. However, a review of numerous posts circulating online with the fake image determined that none included a link to the DOJ files, indicating that it likely did not come from the files.
Reverse image searches of Farage’s and Epstein’s faces from the image returned no links to authentic photos, appearing to suggest that whoever created the image used artificial intelligence to generate it, rather than digitally editing two pictures together.
Putting the image through AI-detection software — including Hive Moderation, Sight Engine and ZeroGPT — returned mixed results. However, these detectors are not always reliable, and the image contained clear signs of AI use.
For example, AI often has issues with mimicking a person’s ears, and the curve of Epstein’s ear in the picture did not match with credible photos of him from Getty Images, a reputable photography database. The part of his hair was also on the wrong side.
Finally, the lighting of the picture was not consistent. For example, the bright glare on the left did not make sense with the shadows on the left of Epstein and Farage’s faces.
Inconsistencies with the fake image as opposed to a credible photo of Epstein, including the part of his hair, the shape of his ear and illogical lighting. (X user @Fx1Jonny/Getty Images)
Snopes has previously fact-checked numerous images of Epstein with prominent politicians, including both real and fake images of the disgraced financier alongside U.S. President Donald Trump.
[ad_2]
Rae Deng
Source link
[ad_1]
President Donald Trump wasted no time in responding to the deaths of two U.S. citizens this month during protests against an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Trump and other top administration officials made inaccurate or unsupported statements within hours of the incidents, a departure from how previous presidents responded in similar situations, experts told us.
Hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good on Jan. 7, Trump claimed that Good was “very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” The president included a video clip of the shooting, captured from a distance, but closer video showed the agent wasn’t run over.
Then, hours after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, Trump posted a picture of a handgun and wrote, “This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go – What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers? The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves — Not an easy thing to do!”
Department of Homeland Security officials also made statements that Pretti “approached” officers with a handgun, “violently resisted” an attempt to “disarm” him, and “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” As we’ve explained, in the immediate aftermath of a shooting, it’s difficult to know exactly what happened, but bystander videos contradicted DHS’ account. They don’t show Pretti holding the gun or threatening officers with it.
The president, himself, softened his remarks, saying the next day, “We’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination” on whether the federal agent’s actions were justified. And the civil rights division of the Justice Department is now investigating the Pretti killing.
All four of the experts we spoke to — a group that included political communications researchers and historians — said that Trump’s remarks following these deaths marked a shift from previous presidents, and even from some of his own rhetoric during his first term.
“As with so much else Trump, yes — he’s extremely different,” Matt Dallek, a political historian and professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, told us in an interview.
“He’s much more extreme and far more untethered from facts and the reality on the ground,” Dallek said, noting that, importantly, it’s not just the president, but also his officials who have taken this tack.
Others we spoke to made the same point.
“Without question,” there has been a shift, Roderick Hart, a professor emeritus of communication at the University of Texas at Austin with expertise in politics and the mass media, told us. “And it has very little to do with this particular situation in Minneapolis. He’s a rhetoric-first guy. … And he’s chosen his people who have exactly the same instincts,” Hart said.
Presidents are normally judicious, particularly when reacting to an event, Hart said. But, “Trump talks before the event is even finished.”
The Minnesota fatal shootings, however, involved federal agents, while examples from past presidencies concern state or local officers.
For example, former President Barack Obama — who was in office at a moment when the ubiquity of camera phones and the rise of social media converged to shine light on the killings of unarmed Black men and boys — took more time before publicly expressing his thoughts.
One of the first illustrations of this moment didn’t actually feature an officer, but rather a neighborhood watch volunteer in central Florida, who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. About a month after that, in response to a reporter’s question, Obama said, in part, “Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me, so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now. But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state, and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”
Obama continued: “But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
In 2014, a year that saw several high-profile police killings, Obama waited three days to publicly respond to the Aug. 9 death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a local police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking widespread protests.
Then, Obama said in a statement: “The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve.”
The former president waited three weeks — when he was asked about it in an interview — to comment on the shooting death that year of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland. In a lengthy answer to a question about how responsible he felt his administration was for addressing police shootings, Obama said, “Well, I think an enormous amount. Not just because, as president, you’re always responsible for what happens in this country and you’ve got to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, but because of my particular experiences that I bring to this office.”
And Obama took more than four months to make remarks on the July 17, 2014, death of Eric Garner in New York — the former president had waited until a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who had choked Garner. In December 2014, Obama said, in part, “My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation. But I want everybody to understand that this week, in the wake of Ferguson, we initiated a Task Force whose job it is to come back to me with specific recommendations about how we strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color and minority communities that feel that bias is taking place; that we are going to take specific steps to improve the training and the work with State and local governments when it comes to policing in communities of color; that we are going to be scrupulous in investigating cases where we are concerned about the impartiality and accountability that’s taking place.”
Before the era of the camera phone, the Rodney King case in 1991 grabbed national attention when a man in a nearby apartment videotaped Los Angeles police beating King during a traffic stop.
Then-President George H.W. Bush waited almost three weeks before commenting. Then, in a prepared statement on March 21, 1991, he said, in part, “We’ve all seen those shocking videotapes and have seen transcripts of the incident in Los Angeles. And without getting into the specifics of the case, those terrible scenes stir us all to demand an end to gratuitous violence and brutality. Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend. This administration will investigate possible breaches of federal law aggressively and will prosecute violators to the full extent of the law. … I was shocked by what I saw in that tape–that violence. And to the degree there’s a federal role here, I’m confident we will go the extra mile to see that that is fulfilled.”
Going back even further, to the 1970s, Dallek said, “Even Nixon’s comments in the wake of the Kent State killings were far more restrained and measured than anything Trump has offered the American people.”
On May 4, 1970, the same day that the National Guard shot and killed four students during a protest of the Vietnam War at Kent State University in Ohio, then-President Richard Nixon issued a statement that said, “This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy. It is my hope that this tragic and unfortunate incident will strengthen the determination of all the Nation’s campuses–administrators, faculty, and students alike–to stand firmly for the right which exists in this country of peaceful dissent and just as strongly against the resort to violence as a means of such expression.”
When he was asked about the proper role of the National Guard — which, in this case, had been called in by the state’s governor — at a press conference four days later, Nixon said, “I want to know what the facts are. I have asked for the facts. When I get them, I will have something to say about it. But I do know when you do have a situation of a crowd throwing rocks and the National Guard is called in, that there is always the chance that it will escalate into the kind of a tragedy that happened at Kent State. If there is one thing I am personally committed to, it is this: I saw the pictures of those four youngsters in the Evening Star the day after that tragedy, and I vowed then that we were going to find methods that would be more effective to deal with these problems of violence, methods that would deal with those who would use force and violence and endanger others, but, at the same time, would not take the lives of innocent people.”
“There are some echoes, I think,” Dallek said, comparing Trump’s recent statements with Nixon’s. But Nixon was much more measured in the aftermath, Dallek said, adding that “he never branded [the students] as traitors or domestic terrorists.” (After the Good killing, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Good’s actions “domestic terrorism,” and Noem used the same phrase to describe Pretti’s actions.)
One distinction between these previous examples and the current situation is that agents deployed in Minneapolis are federal, rather than state or local, Barbara Perry, a professor of governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, which focuses on the American presidency, told us in an interview.
Since most previous cases of officer-involved shootings implicated state or local police, presidents could distance themselves, she said, and say that the Justice Department would investigate.
“So they could keep at arms length the legal process while expressing their sorrow,” Perry said.
Similarly, Guian A. McKee, a professor of public affairs at the Miller Center, told us in an email, “Trump administration statements about the recent killings in Minneapolis have been immediate, they have been political, and they have had little regard for facts or willingness to wait until evidence is clear.”
He went on to explain that one reason for this may be that “the recent killings have been done by federal agents acting as instruments of the president’s own policies and the tactics chosen to implement them. This has not been the case in most other law enforcement-involved deaths, where the officers were state or local. So the actions and their consequences fall much closer to the president.”
Near the end of his first term, Trump made conciliatory remarks about a high-profile case that involved local police officers, not federal agents.
Two days after the May 25, 2020, killing of George Floyd, whose death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer led to widespread protests, Trump wrote on Twitter, “At my request, the FBI and the Department of Justice are already well into an investigation as to the very sad and tragic death in Minnesota of George Floyd.”
And, two days after that, on May 29, he said at the start of an event for business leaders, “I want to express our nation’s deepest condolences and most heartfelt sympathies to the family of George Floyd. A terrible event. Terrible, terrible thing that happened. I’ve asked that the Department of Justice expedite the federal investigation into his death and do it immediately, do it as quickly as absolutely possible. … It should never be allowed to happen, a thing like that.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
[ad_2]
Saranac Hale Spencer
Source link
[ad_1]
Allies of President Donald Trump are promoting a new type of tax-favored savings account that bears his name as a way for families to build savings over the long term.
Under the rules, babies born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, will receive $1,000 in seed money from the federal government to launch the account. Parents could make additional deposits but aren’t required to.
Trump’s allies say the accounts are a way for American families to accumulate savings over the long term.
In a Jan. 29 X post, U.S. Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., said that even with no additional deposits, a $1,000 account would grow to $6,000 by the time the child is 18; to $15,000 by age 27; and to $243,000 by age 55. (The White House shared similar figures.)
Those factors would substantially reduce Fine’s $243,000 figure, personal finance experts say. An analysis by Alan D. Viard, an emeritus senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, found projections like Fine’s “grossly exaggerated.”
Vickie L Bajtelsmit, an emerita professor of finance and real estate at Colorado State University, said, “As usual, politicians like to provide the most optimistic outcomes without any of the caveats.”
Fine’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.
Trump first proposed these accounts as a 2024 presidential candidate; their enactment earned him a Promise Kept in our MAGA-Meter.
Starting July 4, parents will be able to open a Trump account for any child under 18 who has a Social Security number. Parents can deposit up to $5,000 a year into a fund that tracks the growth of the overall stock market. The $5,000 annual cap will eventually be indexed for inflation.
Employers can also deposit up to $2,500 per year (which counts against the $5,000 annual limit). The employer’s contribution would not count toward the employee’s taxable income.
Generally, the child cannot withdraw the funds before turning 18 without paying a 10% penalty plus taxes. Once they turn 18, the Trump accounts would be treated like a traditional Individual Retirement Account, with withdrawals taxed until the account holder is six months shy of 60 years old. However, withdrawals for education and home purchases get a break; they are subject to tax but not a penalty.
The Trump account has attracted the most attention for one feature: a $1,000 starter deposit from the federal government for qualifying babies.
An investment calculator maintained by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission shows that using an average annual investment gain of 10%, $1,000 would grow to almost $245,000 over 55 years, in line with the amount in Fine’s post.
Many account holders will likely withdraw their funds penalty-free for higher education or home purchases. This means the accounts would only accumulate investment gains for between 18 and 30 years, not 55, Bajtelsmit said.
The historical annual average gain for the U.S. stock market is about 10%. But “most experts think that the average moving forward will be less than the historical average,” Bajtelsmit said.
Analysts say the stock market’s price is currently elevated by historical standards, making it harder for future gains to be as robust as past gains. Six major investment firms’ forecasts of annual U.S. stock returns over the next decade range from 3.1% to 6.7%, according to Morningstar, an investment research company, and projected returns over the next 30 years range from 4% to 7%.
At a 6.7% annual average return, $1,000 would grow to about $40,000 over 55 years.
Management fees also could eat into the average annual return.
The $243,000 figure sounds appealing, but what would its purchasing power be in 2081? Quite a bit less than that, experts say. “Regardless of what rate of return you assume, it will buy less than you think,” Bajtelsmit said.
Even a modest 2% inflation rate would take a big bite. An inflation-adjusted investment gain of 8% — a 10% investment gain minus 2% inflation — would produce about $81,000 after 55 years, or about one-third of the amount Fine cited.
However, “2% inflation for the next 55 years may be an overly optimistic guesstimate of future inflation,” Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless said.
Combining 10% investment returns with 3% inflation would produce just under $47,000 over 55 years.
After accounting for inflation and returns potentially below 10%, the amount in the account would decline further upon withdrawal because of taxes.
Using less favorable assumptions — a 6.7% annual average return (rather than 10%) and 3% inflation — the initial $1,000 would be worth about $7,651 in today’s dollars in 55 years. Then, at withdrawal, a typical accountholder could be hit by at least a 12% federal income tax and a 4% state income tax, cutting their take to $6,427 — just 2.6% of the amount Fine’s post cites. (Some states, like Fine’s home state of Florida, don’t have an income tax; this calculation will vary depending on the accountholder’s state of residence.)
Experts say these caveats don’t necessarily undermine the idea behind Trump accounts — particularly the initial $1,000 in free money.
“The people who will benefit the most from this are those who might not otherwise have access or the ability to save a lot,” Bajtelsmit said. “The problem is the exaggeration of returns.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
In unveiling new dietary guidelines, federal health officials have claimed they are correcting past guidance that created a “generation of kids low in protein” and that Americans should get “dramatically” more of the nutrient. While some individuals may benefit from more protein, Americans are not generally protein-deficient.
In fact, many Americans, including a majority of children, already meet or come near to meeting the lower end of the higher daily protein goals promoted in the new guidelines, which range from 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. There’s some uncertainty about how much protein people should consume for optimal health. Multiple factors affect protein needs, which may be higher for older adults, as well as for people who are building muscle through exercise or actively losing weight.
Despite this nuance, officials portrayed the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released Jan. 7, as righting a clear wrong, while misleadingly stating or implying that Americans in general need to eat significantly more protein. The new guidelines include an inverted food pyramid that prominently features a large steak, and the website promoting the guidelines proclaims, “We are ending the war on protein.”
“The old guidelines had about half the protein that you need,” Dr. Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, said during a Jan. 9 appearance on CNN. “Look at the consequence of the old, corrupt food pyramid: a generation of kids low in protein, struggling with muscle mass, weak, having trouble concentrating, addicted to ultraprocessed foods and refined carbohydrates.”
“The science was clear enough on proteins that we should dramatically increase our input of proteins,” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during a Jan. 21 rally.
Nutrition experts we interviewed objected to the idea that Americans in general need to “dramatically increase” protein intake, or that children are broadly deficient. HHS did not reply to an email asking for more information to support these claims.
“When you look at most intake surveys, most Americans were getting in the range of intakes that is being recommended, close to 1.2” grams per kilogram of body weight per day, Stuart Phillips, a professor who studies the effects of nutrition and exercise on skeletal muscle at McMaster University in Canada, told us.
For reference, the recommended range would translate to around 108 to 144 grams of protein per day for a 199-pound man or 94 to 125 grams per day for a 172-pound woman, the average weights for U.S. adults. A 3-ounce serving of chicken breast has 26 grams of protein; a 3-ounce serving of cooked salmon has 19 grams; half a cup of cooked lentils or white beans has 9 grams; and a cup of milk has 8 grams.
Moreover, “probably less than 5% of the U.S. population eat diets that are consistent with the previous dietary guidelines,” Wayne Campbell, a Purdue University professor who studies nutrients, foods and dietary patterns, told us. “It is an inappropriate attack on past guidelines to say that the guidelines are the reason why everybody eats a poor diet and is not as healthy as they hopefully would be.”
“There is no evidence of widespread protein deficiency in the U.S. population,” Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told us.
Previous editions of the dietary guidelines did not give a particular figure for the amount of protein people should eat, experts said. Hu explained that a different group of experts helps set daily recommendations for specific ranges of protein and other nutrients.
“Who is going to track how many grams per kilogram body weight of protein” they are eating? Wendi Gosliner, who leads research projects at the University of California’s Nutrition Policy Institute, told us, noting that the guidelines are meant to guide federal food programs and nutrition education by providing advice that is “digestible” for the general public.
Raising protein intake recommendations requires data showing “widespread protein inadequacy” or that there are benefits to eating more protein beyond the minimum, Hu said. “We don’t have any of those data at this point to substantially increase protein intake recommendations” for the general population, Hu said. He added that an argument could be made for relatively high protein intake for certain segments of the population, including people on weight loss drugs, older adults and people engaged in physical activity that builds muscles.
Some experts are supportive of the protein recommendations in the new guidelines.
Phillips, who was not involved in the guidelines, said that the new range is “more in line with what I would recommend,” agreeing the evidence is particularly strong for certain subgroups and depends on physical activity level. However, he disagreed with the implication that prior guidelines led to widespread deficiency.
Claims that the old food pyramid “produced a ‘generation of children low in protein’ or broadly impaired muscle mass or cognition are not supported by direct evidence,” Phillips told us. “Childhood health challenges are far more plausibly linked to excess energy intake, poor diet quality, physical inactivity, and high consumption of ultra-processed foods than to insufficient protein per se.”
(To be clear, the new food pyramid does not replace the original 1992 food pyramid people may remember, which was replaced by another, less hierarchical pyramid in 2005 and then MyPlate in 2011.)
“My takeaway from all of it is that we’ve elevated protein in people’s thinking, it’s front and center, and we gave people very specific goals,” Donald Layman, a protein biochemist and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told us. “I think we’ve made an enormous step forward in clarity.” Layman, who is also a food company consultant, owns a fat loss company that sells meal replacement shakes, although he told us he has lost money on this latter endeavor.
Layman and nutritional physiologist Heather Leidy of the University of Texas at Austin co-authored reviews of the effects of the new recommended protein range on weight management and nutrient adequacy for HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agencies that produce the guidelines.
Unusually, Layman, Leidy and seven additional scientists were asked to perform these reviews in under three months, according to STAT. A 20-person committee of nutrition researchers had previously spent years identifying research questions, reviewing the literature and formulating recommendations. The scientific advisory committee does not write the guidelines, but their conclusions inform them. The guidelines in the past have been credited to a list of HHS and USDA staff, although this year’s guidance document does not name authors.
Makary has repeatedly said that the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans increased recommended daily protein intake by “50% to 100%.”
It’s true that the new recommended intake of 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day is 50% to 100% above the Recommended Dietary Allowance of 0.8 grams per kilogram per day for adults. (Children have somewhat higher RDAs, when measured per kilogram of body weight.) These RDAs were established to set baselines for nutrients to prevent deficiency in the vast majority of Americans.
But to be clear, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not set RDAs, Campbell explained, which are instead set via a process led by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine.
The RDA is “not a recommendation for people to purposefully try to eat that amount of protein,” Campbell said, but rather represents an amount people should not fall below. “If you’re eating 1.0 gram per kilo, 1.2 or 1.4 — or even very few people eat 1.6 — then that’s all within a range … that the 0.8 would support.”
The RDAs, along with other values, inform the dietary guidelines. However, Campbell said that the guidelines are meant to recommend which food types to eat, not particular nutrient intakes. Researchers do modeling to ensure what they are recommending “meets or moderately exceeds” the nutrient minimums, he said. He was not involved in the current guidelines but served on the scientific advisory committee for the 2015-2020 guidelines.
Campbell said that the current RDA was based on the best evidence available in the early 2000s, when it was last reviewed, and that there’s “inconsistent” evidence since on whether it should be changed. Ann Yaktine, director of the Food and Nutrition Board, told us that protein is among the nutrients set to be updated, although she said she could not predict a timeline. Until that update is complete, she said, the current RDA “will remain,” adding that RDAs and other nutrient-related values inform the dietary guidelines, “not the reverse.”
Americans mostly exceed the minimal requirement to prevent protein deficiency and, in many cases, even meet the higher goal set in the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
“The consensus has not been that there is a dramatic shortage of protein in this country,” Gosliner said, contrary to Kennedy’s claim that Americans need to “dramatically” increase intake.
Using survey data on American diets collected by the U.S. government, researchers have estimated that adults on average get near or even slightly above 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day — the bottom of the range now recommended by the dietary guidelines.
“Because the intake of protein is already pretty high, especially animal protein, in the U.S. population, there is no evidence that further increasing protein intake, especially in a major way, will confer significant health benefit,” Hu said.
However, Layman pointed out that there’s variation in how much protein Americans consume. The people who already consume protein within the new recommended range do not need to increase their intake, he said, but some people “need to dramatically increase” protein intake.
A 2018 study on protein intakes between 2001 and 2014 shows that nonelderly American adult males on average exceeded 1.2 grams per kilogram, but that the average fell to closer to 1.0 as they aged. Women on average got between approximately 1.0 and 1.15 grams per kilogram per day, with amounts also falling with age.
Phillips also said there was room for improvement in protein consumption. “Many Americans meet the RDA only marginally, consume protein in uneven daily patterns, or obtain it largely from low-quality, ultra-processed sources,” he said. However, he added that most Americans “are not protein deficient in the clinical sense.” He cautioned against framing the new recommendations as being driven by deficiency, rather than a way to optimize certain outcomes.
Makary’s claim that prior guidelines led to “a generation of kids low in protein” also overstates the prevalence of protein deficiency in the U.S.
“It’s not like there’s growth stunting on a large scale in the United States because kids are protein deficient,” Phillips said. “It’s disingenuous at best and flat out wrong at worst.”
The 2018 study found that virtually no children age 8 and under ate less than the RDA — the level meant to prevent deficiency in the vast majority of the population. Protein underconsumption did rise with age for minors, with 11% of teenage boys and 23% of teenage girls not meeting the RDA.
Most age groups of children, both male and female, on average exceeded 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. The exception was adolescent girls, who consumed around 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram daily.
Layman acknowledged a relative lack of research on children and protein intake but also pointed to data showing that adolescents are at risk of not eating enough protein. He also listed the many poor health outcomes for American children today and argued that past guidance had preceded changes in kids’ diets.
“We know it’s not working,” he said. “We know that after the original guidelines in 1980 that mothers, thinking they were doing the right thing and avoiding cholesterol and saturated fat, switched from having eggs and bacon and milk at breakfast to having Pop-Tarts and Cap’n Crunch and orange juice.”
However, Hu detailed a long list of factors other than protein that have led to childhood obesity and other metabolic conditions. These include generally low-quality diets in an obesity-promoting environment, lack of sufficient sleep, inactivity and excessive social media use. “Those are all important drivers of adverse health incomes in children,” he said. “I don’t think protein inadequacy or protein deficiency is a major driver.”
“I wish I could tell you that I thought that … we just haven’t been feeding kids enough protein, particularly animal protein, and that’s what’s causing all of the very sad dietary-related challenges that kids are experiencing,” Gosliner said. “From my perspective, there is no evidence of that being true.”
A separate question is whether people are generally healthier if they consume substantially more protein than the RDA’s minimum requirement.
Campbell said that this is a challenging question to answer rigorously. “It’s very difficult to do controlled feeding studies of sufficient length to actually feed people different quantities of protein for months on end to see what happens to them,” he said.
“Where the science is strongest is in showing that certain groups benefit from protein intakes above the RDA,” Phillips said. “Older adults, people engaged in regular resistance or endurance training, individuals recovering from illness or injury, and those intentionally losing weight all appear to achieve better outcomes at intakes closer to 1.2–1.6 g/kg/day. In these contexts, higher protein supports the maintenance of lean mass, functional capacity, and satiety.”
However, Hu criticized the new guidelines for setting this intake goal broadly, saying that they “are not designed for specific groups of U.S. adults,” but rather the general population.
In a Jan. 7 opinion article in the Free Press, Makary and an FDA co-author referred specifically to benefits of higher protein intakes for weight loss. “Eating more protein in line with these recommendations consistently improves weight and body composition without harm,” they wrote.
Layman and Leidy’s review, used to justify the new guidelines, concluded there was “moderate to strong” evidence that eating protein within the new recommended range promotes weight management.
However, Gosliner said that the review relied on studies of people engaged in weight loss, which are not necessarily generalizable. “They are extrapolating that to the entire population, which doesn’t make sense,” she said.
Layman countered that 75% of Americans are overweight or obese. “Should they basically be guidelines to keep people fat or to get people to ideal weight?” he said. He said that the weight loss studies included in his review in many cases included a maintenance period where people were not restricting calories.
But just because many Americans could benefit from calorie restriction or strength training does not mean that most adults are engaging in these behaviors, other experts said.
A higher protein diet while people are “purposefully energy restricting their diets to lose weight” may help people maintain lean tissue and muscle, Campbell explained. But protein is “not going to be a magical solution for you to actually permanently keep any weight off.”
“Protein without resistance exercise, during weight loss, does very little,” Phillips wrote in a Jan. 6 article on protein hype published in the Conversation. “Exercise is the major driver that helps lean mass retention. Protein is the supporting material.”
Phillips also pointed out that older adults, who can benefit from higher protein intake, make up an increasing share of the population. Protein is “important,” he said, “but it is not a stand-alone solution to metabolic health, childhood development, or healthy aging.”
The impact of the new dietary guidelines will depend on how people interpret them, some experts said.
Phillips wrote in his Conversation article that 2025 was the year protein “jumped the shark,” explaining a cultural context where it has been “oversold, overvalued and overhyped.” One concern, he told us, is that people will think they are doing “something good for their health” simply by increasing their protein intake, even if they are already consuming a relatively high amount.
If people eat “substantially” more protein, it could increase the risk of chronic disease, Hu said, explaining that consuming too much protein — and particularly animal protein — is associated with increased risk of chronic disease. “It depends on what comes together with the protein,” he said. For example, he said, people who consume more animal protein also consume more saturated fat, cholesterol and “other unhealthy components.”
“At the end of the day you are eating foods for multiple compounds and nutrients, not just protein,” Campbell said.
The guidelines themselves encourage eating a “variety” of protein foods from animal and plant sources, but the new food pyramid prominently features a large steak in the upper left-hand corner, with nuts and legumes further down.
The original committee tasked under the Biden administration with the scientific review for the dietary guidelines recommended an emphasis on consuming more peas, beans and lentils and less red and processed meat. The new dietary guidelines rejected this advice, with the exception of recommending against processed meat.
If someone replaced refined carbohydrates and sugar in their diet with plant protein, lean protein and eggs, that would be “reasonable,” Hu said. But people who consume a large quantity of animal protein tend to eat significantly less nutrient-dense plant protein sources, he said.
Further, Hu said, supermarkets are now stocked with numerous highly processed protein products.
The new guidelines discourage eating highly processed foods. But Gosliner reiterated that people often do not follow dietary advice. “There’s no reason to think now that if protein is all the rage and people are saying, ‘Eat more protein,’ that you’re not going to start seeing ice cream with protein powder and cookies with protein powder.”
When asked about the risk of the new guidance feeding into the current trend for promoting highly processed foods as sources of protein, Layman replied, “I think you need to step back and look at the guidelines. What’s the opening words? Eat real food.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
[ad_2]
Kate Yandell
Source link
[ad_1]
Through President Donald Trump’s first full 10 months in office, the cumulative U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was down 3.9% from the same period in 2024. His claim that he has “slashed our trade deficit by 77%” appears to compare the monthly trade deficit in January 2025 to the deficit nine months later in October.
Economic experts told us that Trump’s method is not the preferable way to measure whether the overall trade imbalance with international trading partners is up or down.
“[L]ooking at changes from one month to another is not a reliable way to assess whether the trade deficit is rising or falling in any meaningful sense,” Kyle Handley, a professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego, wrote in an email to us.
He said “[m]onthly trade balance figures are extremely volatile” and “reflect timing of shipments, energy prices, seasonal adjustment noise, and one-off transactions.” He suggested instead looking at trade trends over several months or, when possible, a full year.
On multiple occasions, however, Trump has claimed to have already reduced the trade deficit by a large amount based on just two months of data.
“We had the largest trade deficit in world history” under former President Joe Biden, “but in one year I’ve slashed our gaping trade deficit by a staggering 77%,” Trump said in Jan. 27 remarks in Iowa, for example.
In a speech at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 21, Trump made it more clear that he was comparing the trade deficit in one month to another, saying, “In one year, I slashed our monthly trade deficit by a staggering 77% — and all of this with no inflation, something everyone said could not be done.” The president highlighted the drop in the monthly trade deficit again in a Jan. 30 Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which he attributed the “astonishing” decrease to “the help of tariffs.”
He even predicted in a Jan. 20 White House press conference: “Next year we won’t have a trade deficit.”
To be clear, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the annual inflation rate has declined from 3% to 2.7% since Trump has been back in office, but it’s not at 0%. So prices are still increasing, just at a slower pace. His emphasis on the monthly trade deficit could also mislead people hearing or reading his remarks.
“The monthly trade balance has been unusually volatile this year, so I would be cautious about drawing conclusions from the data so far,” Robert Johnson, an international economist and associate economics professor at the University of Notre Dame, told us in an email.
In October, U.S. imports of goods and services exceeded exports by about $29.2 billion, the lowest one-month gap in trade since 2009, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The October figure was down roughly 77.3% from the $128.8 billion deficit in trade in January last year. That appears to be how Trump calculated the percentage, although the White House did not confirm that when we asked.
But Johnson said that deficits were “unusually large” in early 2025, between roughly $120 billion and $136 billion in January, February and March, because U.S. importers stocked up on goods to build their inventories before various tariffs on imported products that Trump had said he planned to implement went into effect. “Then, after the tariffs were put in place, imports fell back to normal,” producing smaller monthly deficits in later months.
“Whether this is a permanent change, or simply reflecting the drawdown in inventories, is too soon to tell,” Johnson said.
“If you just take the number from a month and you compare it to a number from another month, then you’re just introducing a lot of all of the noise that’s in the monthly data,” Monica de Bolle, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told us in an interview.
When the monthly trade deficit in goods and services dipped to a 16-year low in October, some economists attributed the decline mostly to an increase in U.S. exports of gold and a decrease in imports of pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, BEA data released on Jan. 29 show that the monthly deficit nearly doubled to $56.8 billion in November, which would be a 55.9% drop from January – and would make the 77% figure outdated.
“Large month-to-month swings are common, even in periods with no underlying structural change in trade policy or economic conditions,” Handley, at UC San Diego, said. “For that reason, economists almost never evaluate claims about the ‘trade deficit’ based on comparisons between two individual months.”
He listed other measurements that better assess whether the trade deficit is rising or falling, such as comparing cumulative deficits within a year or year-to-date totals compared with the same period in prior years.
“On those measures, the claim that the deficit fell sharply in 2025 does not hold up,” he said.
As we noted, when totaling the trade deficit in each of Trump’s first full 10 months in office in 2025, from February to November, the most recent data available, the gap between imports and exports was $710.7 billion – a 3.9% decline from the same period in 2024. On the other hand, the trade deficit including all months from January to November last year was $839.5 billion – up 4.1% from the same 11 months in 2024.
Trump didn’t take office until Jan. 20, but to reemphasize Johnson’s point, there was a large trade deficit in the first quarter of 2025 as importers rushed to acquire goods ahead of Trump’s proposed tariffs.
Trade data for December, and thus all of 2025, should be published on Feb. 19, according to the Census Bureau’s release schedule. The largest annual U.S. trade deficit in goods and services on record was about $923.7 billion in 2022, during the Biden administration, according to BEA data going back to 1960. (The Census Bureau and BEA jointly provide this data.)
Although Trump may view a trade deficit as something negative, many economists don’t see it that way.
“A trade deficit sounds bad, but it is neither good nor bad,” Tarek Alexander Hassan, a professor of economics at Boston University, wrote in an April 2025 opinion post. “It doesn’t mean the US is losing money. It simply means foreigners are sending the US more goods than the US is sending them.”
The experts we consulted also told us that the trade deficit is unlikely to be eliminated “next year,” as Trump claimed.
“It is still the case that the U.S. is not self-sufficient in everything,” de Bolle, at PIIE, said. “It may be able to export a lot, but it still imports way more than it exports.”
She said on a macroeconomic level, the U.S. consumes more than it saves, and “that is going to translate into a trade deficit most of the time, not a trade surplus.”
Handley said to proceed “very cautiously” with predictions that the trade deficit will end due to tariffs, as Trump suggested in his Jan. 20 White House remarks.
“Trade deficits reflect saving and investment balances, exchange rates, and macroeconomic conditions, not just tariffs,” Handley said, adding that tariffs could reduce the exports of U.S. manufacturing firms by increasing the cost of goods imported for production, “and thus the deficit will not improve.”
He noted that most of the tariffs that Trump imposed in 2018 and 2019, during his first presidential term, applied to goods that American manufacturers imported for production purposes. “When their inputs got more expensive, their exports slowed down as well,” he said. “We are seeing those same dynamics right now.”
The last time that the U.S. did not have an annual trade deficit in goods and services was 1975. That year, there was a trade surplus of $12.4 billion, according to BEA records.
There is also the issue of whether all of Trump’s second-term tariffs will continue as implemented.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year on the legality of some Trump tariff policies. That will determine whether the tariffs remain in place in their current form.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
[ad_2]
D’Angelo Gore
Source link
[ad_1]
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from forcing hundreds of thousands of Haitians to leave the U.S., a temporary blow to President Donald Trump’s campaign promise he made while spreading a ridiculous falsehood about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.
U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes in Washington, D.C., said in her Feb. 2 ruling it “seems substantially likely” that the administration decided to terminate Temporary Protected Status “because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
The ruling came a day before the federal protections for Haitians were set to expire in accordance with a Department of Homeland Security directive issued by Secretary Kristi Noem. Reyes’ ruling allows litigation to continue before the protections end.
Temporary Protected Status, which allows people to temporarily live and work in the U.S., is provided to people from certain countries experiencing war, environmental disasters and epidemics. The U.S. first gave Haitians eligibility for the program following a 2010 earthquake. During the Biden administration, Haiti’s deteriorating conditions prompted the U.S. federal government to redesignate Haiti’s status , allowing more Haitians to become eligible.
More than 300,000 Haitians who have TPS live in the U.S., with the largest group residing in Florida. Many work in health care, manufacturing or agriculture.
The judge’s ruling brought relief for Haitians and employers who rely on them.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported days before the ruling that some of the senior citizens at Sinai Residences in Boca Raton, Florida, asked if they could hide Haitian staff in their apartments. About 9% of staff members are Haitians with Temporary Protected Status while 69% of the center’s staff are foreign-born.
Springfield’s Republican Mayor Rob Rue said in a statement that the ruling provides stability for families who are part of the community.
“It reflects the reality that many individuals are working, paying taxes, raising families and contributing every day to the life of our City,” he said.
The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling, which means that federal protections for Haitians remain in jeopardy.
“Supreme Court, here we come,” wrote Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
The class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s ending of TPS was filed on behalf of five Haitian TPS holders, including a nurse in Springfield, Ohio, a neuroscience graduate student in California, a software engineer who lives in New Jersey, a New York college student and a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department.
Q: What did the judge rule?
Reyes found that Noem’s decision to terminate TPS was “arbitrary and capricious” and ignored a requirement by Congress that she review conditions in Haiti after consulting with appropriate agencies.
The federal government said in a November notice ending TPS that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti” that prevent Haitian nationals “from returning in safety.”
That conclusion runs counter to the evidence, Reyes found, pointing to the State Department warnings against travel to Haiti because of crime, terrorism and civil unrest.
In an 83-page ruling, Reyes called out repeated anti-immigrant rhetoric by Noem and Trump.
Noem’s decision to terminate TPS “was motivated, at least in part, by racial animus,” Reyes wrote. She noted statements by Noem calling people from certain countries “killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies,” and saying, “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.”
During a December 2025 Pennsylvania rally, Trump said the U.S. allows in people from “shithole countries.” He added, “Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden — just a few — let us have a few from Denmark.”
The judge wrote, “It is not a coincidence that Haiti’s population is ninety-five percent black while Norway’s is over ninety percent white.”
Q: What does the ruling mean for Haitians with TPS?
For now, Haitians who have TPS can remain in the U.S.
If the Trump administration were allowed to end TPS, immigration authorities could arrest TPS holders, terminate asylum proceedings and send Haitians to a third country the U.S. has an agreement with, such as Uganda, Ecuador, or Honduras, University of Miami law professor Irwin Stotzky told PolitiFact before the ruling.
Q: Why does the Trump administration want to end the program?
Trump promised to end protections for Haitians while campaigning in 2024 as he spread the falsehood that Haitians in Springfield were stealing and eating people’s pets.
City and county officials said repeatedly that was not happening. Rebuttals did not diminish the consequences, including dozens of bomb threats at schools, grocery stores and government buildings. PolitiFact named the statements by Trump and his running mate JD Vance the 2024 Lie of the Year.
About 10,000 Haitians with TPS now live in Springfield. Some news reports cite higher figures, but the population may have declined since Trump took office.
McLaughlin, Homeland Security’s spokesperson, said after the Feb. 2 ruling, “Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades. Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.”
Although TPS was originally designated because of the earthquake, it was redesignated multiple times including after the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse and other national upheaval.
During Trump’s first term, the courts blocked his administration’s efforts to end TPS for Haitians.
RELATED: Immigration after one year under Trump: Where do mass deportation efforts stand?
Q: Are people who have TPS eligible for government assistance?
Business leaders and politicians — including Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican — said Haitian TPS holders contribute positively to the economy. TPS critics said Haitians are a drain on government resources.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told 10 WBNS in late January that ending the temporary protections “doesn’t necessarily mean (affected Haitians) have to go back to Haiti. They can go wherever they’d like, but we cannot continue to keep that many people that are predominantly reliant on our social safety net programs.”
We contacted Moreno’s office to ask which safety net programs he referred to and received no response.
TPS holders are not eligible for federal benefits such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. (If someone had TPS but then obtained asylum or permanent residency, then that subsequent status determines their eligibility for federal benefits.)
For Medicaid and the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, TPS holders are eligible if pregnant or up to 21 years old in states that elect to cover these groups..
Examining government services used by TPS holders is only part of the equation.
Reyes wrote that Noem “failed to consider the impact Haitian TPS holders have on our economy” and “did not account for the $1.3 billion they pay annually in taxes, among their many other contributions.”
RELATED: Tracking Trump’s campaign promises on our MAGA-Meter
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
An image circulated online in
For example, conspiracy theorist and Infowars host Alex Jones posted the image (archived) on X on Feb. 1, claiming Grok, the social media platform’s artificial intelligence tool, “says this photo of the young future, New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani with Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and others is real.”
(X user @RealAlexJones)
Jones’ post received more than 1.6 million views. Variations of the rumor spread on other X accounts (archived, archived, archived), as well.
Although some readers seemed to believe the image depicted a real-life event, there was no evidence it was real. If it were, reputable news media outlets would have reported on it.
Rather, the image of Mamdani and his mother with Epstein, Clinton, Gates, Bezos and Maxwell originated with @DumbFckFinder — a social media account that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature. The X account is labeled “parody account,” and its bio says it shares imagery created with artificial intelligence to “expose” people who believe it.
The image spread as Mamdani’s mother, movie director Mira Nair, made headlines for appearing (archived) in government-released files on Epstein. Publicist Peggy Siegal said in an email to Epstein that Nair was at an after-party for her 2009 film, “Amelia,” at Maxwell’s townhouse, along with Clinton and Bezos.
(justice.gov)
We found no further evidence linking Nair to Maxwell or the others beyond the 2009 party. Additionally, in 2009 Mamdani would have been 18 — not a child, as pictured in the image.
We ran the image of Mamdani and Nair through AI-detection software Hive, which found the image to be more than 97% likely to be AI-generated. Google’s Gemini also detected a SynthID watermark, concluding that “most or all of this image was edited or generated using Google AI.”
The Associated Press reported that a number of images of Mamdani shared by the account were generated with AI.
Snopes has addressed similar satirical claims related to Epstein in the past, including the assertion that U.S. Vice President JD Vance was the last person to see him alive before he died by suicide and a rumor that Denmark renamed Greenland “Epstein Island” to stop Trump from talking about it.
For background, here is why we alert readers to rumors created by sources that call their output humorous or satirical.
[ad_2]
Taija PerryCook
Source link
[ad_1]
This page hosts daily news stories about the media, social media, and the journalism industry. Get the latest Hirings and Firings, Media Transactions, Controversies, Censorship…
The post Media News Daily: Top Stories for 02/03/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link
[ad_1]
Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers that are either a signatory of the International…
The post MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 02/03/2026 appeared first on Media Bias/Fact Check.
[ad_2]
Media Bias Fact Check
Source link