Category: Fact Checking

Claim:

The radiation from Bluetooth earbuds, such as AirPods, causes brain cancer.

Rating:

Since Bluetooth-operated wireless earbuds came into existence, internet users have claimed that they can “fry” or “cook” our brains — in other words, that they can cause brain cancer: 

This is because the idea of radiation is often associated with heat and cancer, as is the case for sunlight. 

These claims have appeared on various social media platforms including Reddit, Facebook (here too) and Instagram. Some of these posts appeared on the pages of serious-sounding groups, such as the Environmental Health Trust. Others reshared compelling videos:

Rumors that wireless devices can “cook” or “fry” one’s brain appeared in 2015, when a group of more than 200 researchers signed an appeal to protect humans against “non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” (EMF). Their open letter mentioned, without citing, “numerous recent scientific publications” that allegedly suggested EMF might cause cancer and other harmful effects on cognition and the reproductive system, as well as in animals and plants. They called for authorities to create better guidelines and enforce stricter standards. As we reported in 2019, that open letter never mentions AirPods specifically, for a simple reason: In 2015, they did not exist.

The research has yet to find proof they’re cancer-causing, or even a correlation between Bluetooth earbuds and poor health, as of the time of this writing.

What Is EMF Radiation?

EMF radiation has two sources: some of it is man-made, but it also occurs naturally. There are two types: non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. Research has shown that the latter type — which is high-frequency and high-energy — can cause cellular damage as well as cancer, which is what we fear when we hear the word “radiation.” This category includes ultraviolets (which come from sunlight), X-rays and therapeutic radiation, such as what medicine uses to treat certain types of cancers. “Ionizing” means that this kind of radiation can remove negatively-charged electrons from atoms, a process that turns atoms into positively-charged — and therefore reactive — “cations.”

Below the visible spectrum, we find non-ionizing radiation, low-frequency waves. Non-ionizing radiation has low frequency waves and low energy. This group includes radiation emitted by microwaves, mobile phones and Wi-Fi, but also television and radio. This is also where Bluetooth radiation falls, around 2.4 gigahertz — somewhere between mobile phones and microwaves. The National Cancer Institute published a helpful chart:

(National Cancer Institute)

What one study found, however, is that Bluetooth headphones and earphones emit far less radiation than mobile phones — one-tenth to one-four-hundredth as much, the study said. 

What the Research Shows

While ethical concerns make it difficult to experiment with the effects of non-ionizing EMF on human health, researchers across the world have done large-cohort observational studies, which has allowed a scientific consensus to emerge. This research focused on cellular phones, which we will use as a benchmark for the effects of Bluetooth given that the phones emit more radiation in the same frequency range than wireless earbuds and headphones.

Between 2001 and 2006, Danish scientists looked at the incidence of cancer in a cohort of 420,095 people who’d begun to use mobile phones between 1982 and 1995. They found that the number of cancers in that cohort was not higher than in other groups and concluded, with a very high level of certainty, that the devices did not cause cancer.

In 2021, scientists across 14 countries recruited 899 children and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24 who had developed brain cancer, and 1,910 children and young adults in the same age bracket to act as controls. “Overall,” they wrote, “our study provides no evidence of a causal association between wireless phone use and brain tumours in young people.”

More recently in 2022, a “Million Women Study” in the United Kingdom focused specifically on brain cancer among women. The team of scientists recruited 776,156 women between 1996 and 2001 and checked in again with them in 2011 to see how many had developed brain cancer. There, too, they found cellphone use did not increase the incidence of brain cancer. 

Meanwhile in 2020, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ publication IEEE Access published a study that concluded that EMF were harmful to human health. In the years since, the IEEE retracted the study. “The article should not be used for research or citation because of errors found in the analysis reported in this article, resulting in inaccurate results and conclusions,” the retraction note read.

We have reported on the danger of radiation for other devices before, including microwaves and CFL lightbulbs.

Sources

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

On June 4, President Joe Biden announced new measures to restrict asylum eligibility for those apprehended while trying to enter the U.S. illegally across the southern border.

As we’ve reported, apprehensions of those crossing illegally have gone up significantly during his presidency. Behind the increase is a spike in migrants seeking asylum. While asylum application figures aren’t broken down by how immigrants enter the country, the overall statistics show nearly 89,000 asylum applications in the U.S. in fiscal 2021; in fiscal 2023, the figure was nearly 479,000.

Less than 15% of those seeking asylum were ultimately granted it in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, according to Justice Department statistics. But all of the applications have created a growing backlog of cases, which can take several years to get to court.

Biden issued a proclamation to implement steps to decrease such crossings and ease the load of processing asylum applications. While proclamations are often ceremonial declarations, this one contained specific changes to immigration procedures that are destined to be challenged in court.

Here, we answer several questions about Biden’s action.

What’s in Biden’s border proclamation?

Biden’s order seeks to reduce the flow of people trying to cross the border illegally by suspending the entry of certain migrants and steering them toward a legal means of entry.

The order, as the Department of Homeland Security explains in a June 4 fact sheet, “generally restricts asylum eligibility” when the number of people apprehended crossing the southern border illegally reaches a daily average of 2,500 encounters or more for seven straight days. For context, apprehensions averaged nearly 4,300 a day in April, according to the most recent U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

Some — but not all — of those who are apprehended during this period of high border encounters will be denied asylum eligibility and “promptly removed,” the DHS fact sheet says.

The DHS spells out those who are exempt from the policy: Lawful permanent residents, unaccompanied children, victims of “a severe form of trafficking,” “noncitizens with a valid visa or other lawful permission to enter the United States,” and noncitizens who enter the U.S. at a legal port of entry using a DHS-approved process, such as CBP One — an app that in January 2023 began accepting appointments for a limited number of migrants who are in Mexico and want to request asylum or parole.

There is also a broader exemption for people who “express a fear of return to their country or country of removal, a fear of persecution or torture, or an intention to apply for asylum” if they “establish a reasonable probability of persecution or torture in the country of removal.”

Currently, Border Patrol agents ask those apprehended at the border if they have a fear of returning to their home countries and want to apply for asylum, Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, told us in a phone interview. But CBP will not ask such questions and those apprehended must affirmatively state that they wish to apply for asylum before they are referred to an asylum officer, she said. It’s known as the “shout test,” she added.

Those who are removed when this new policy is in effect will be barred from entering the U.S. for five years and may be subject to criminal prosecution.

The restrictions will be lifted 14 calendar days after the daily average of people apprehended crossing the border illegally drops to 1,500 encounters or less for seven consecutive days. The daily monthly average hasn’t been that low since July 2020.

What reason did Biden give for acting?

In his proclamation, Biden cited a need to “address the historic levels of migration and more efficiently process migrants arriving at the southern border given current resource levels.” He called out Congress for not passing immigration legislation, including a bipartisan Senate deal that was unveiled in February but failed to advance.

“Our broken immigration system is directly contributing to the historic migration we are seeing throughout the Western Hemisphere, exacerbated by poor economic conditions, natural disasters, and general insecurity, and this fact, combined with inadequate resources to keep pace, has once again severely strained our capacity at the border,” Biden’s proclamation said. “The result is a vicious cycle in which our United States Border Patrol facilities constantly risk overcrowding, our detention system has regularly been at capacity, and our asylum system remains backlogged and cannot deliver timely decisions, all of which spurs more people to make the dangerous journey north to the United States.”

The immigration court backlog was nearly 3.6 million cases as of April, according to figures compiled by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan research center at Syracuse University.

Biden criticized Congress, saying there had been a “decades-long failure … to address the problem through systemic reform and adequate funding” and specifically cited “Congress’s failure to pass the bipartisan legislative proposal.” As a result, he said, “I must exercise my executive authorities to meet the moment.”

How many people are crossing the border illegally now?

As of April, there had been 531,208 encounters of people who illegally crossed the southern border in 2024, according to the most recent figures published by CBP. That is an average of 132,802 encounters a month, or about 4,390 encounters a day.

Last month, CBS News reported that during the first three weeks of May, apprehensions by U.S. Border Patrol agents were down to 3,700 a day, based on internal government data. Complete figures for the month should be publicly available later in June.

The number of encounters recorded by the Border Patrol through the first four months of this year already was lower than in the same periods under Biden in 2022 and 2023, when there were 721,732 and 607,627 apprehensions of illegal border crossers, respectively. Those totals do not necessarily equal the number of people who illegally entered because some people may have been encountered more than once due to repeat attempts to enter the country.

What impact will the order have on illegal crossings?

It’s unclear how effective the order will be. Putzel-Kavanaugh, of the Migration Policy Institute, is skeptical that the policy — which DHS called temporary — will be lifted any time soon.

“Right now, apprehensions are around 4,000 per day – so to get to 1,500 would mean apprehensions need to be cut by more than half,” she said. “l can’t imagine that would happen any time soon.”

In a June 5 analysis of the new policy, the American Immigration Council said it’s “highly unlikely that the current emergency will be lifted in the near future,” citing statistics that show “monthly average border crossings have exceeded 1,500 in every month” but one in five of the last six fiscal years.

Putzel-Kavanaugh does, however, expect that initially there will be some reduction in illegal border crossings.

“Migrants who are either deciding to travel [to the U.S.] or are currently in Mexico between the [legal] ports [of entry] … are likely to pause and wait and see what the impacts will be on the ground,” she said.

She also said they may try to choose a legal way to enter — which is what the administration wants.

“The idea is to encourage people to use the lawful pathways,” she said. “We could see an increase in CBP One. The effect of that could be that people wait longer for appointments.”

As we have written before, DHS describes CBP One as a “safer, humane, and more orderly” way of processing migrants. Those with CBP One appointments are screened and could be subject to expedited removal. But it currently takes weeks or months to get an appointment, and increasing the number of appointments will add to the delays, Putzel-Kavanaugh said.

Appointments are capped at 1,450 per day — which is 529,250 a year. For calendar year 2023, 413,300 people scheduled such appointments, CBP says.

“Those who seek to come to the United States legally, for example, by making an appointment and coming to a port of entry, asylum will still be available to them,” Biden said when announcing his proclamation in a press conference on June 4. “But if an individual chooses not to use our legal pathways, if they choose to come without permission and against the law, they’ll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States.”

How will migrants be ‘promptly removed’?

At a June 4 background briefing for reporters, a senior administration official said that at times of high border crossings “individuals who do not manifest a fear will be immediately removable, and we anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours.”

But experts are skeptical that the administration has the resources to carry out the job.

“The new regulation presumes that the government will have the capacity to subject everyone to expedited removal,” the American Immigration Council’s analysis said. “This would require the government to not only have enough asylum officers to screen everyone who requests an interview through a ‘shout test’ and conduct fear interviews that (because they require more from the respondent) may take longer than existing interviews do, but also have the detention beds to hold them during this process and then enough deportation flights to return them to their home countries.”

Also, it isn’t easy to remove migrants who have traveled from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America, Putzel-Kavanaugh said. “Trying to organize removals for people all over the world is an incredibly time-consuming task,” she said, adding that some countries aren’t willing to accept the migrants and other countries don’t have the resources to do it well or quickly.

On May 16, the DHS and the Department of Justice announced what they called a Recent Arrivals Docket, or RA Docket, process. The system, which is now in place in five major cities, seeks “to accelerate asylum proceedings” for single adults “so that individuals who do not qualify for relief can be removed more quickly and those who do qualify can achieve protection sooner,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said.

The goal is to make asylum decisions in 180 days, instead of years, the joint announcement said.

Putzel-Kavanaugh said it is too soon to know how well the RA Docket process will work, but she believes the administration’s move toward such expedited removal processes will make it difficult for migrants to receive due process. “It raises questions about people being able to access an attorney, get documents together to prove their case – all of the due process questions.”

What impact will it have on those seeking asylum?

The process for migrants to show that they are eligible for asylum during the initial screening process will be more difficult during periods of high border encounters. It is the second time in two years that the administration has tightened the rules, the American Immigration Council said in its analysis.

American Immigration Council, June 5: Before 2023, the standard for passing a screening interview for asylum was demonstrating “credible fear” of persecution—defined as a “significant possibility” (at least a 10 percent chance) that their asylum claim would prevail. Under the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule enacted in May 2023, most people who cross between ports of entry and are screened by an asylum officer are subjected to a higher standard known as “reasonable possibility.”

Under the new regulation, whenever the emergency suspension of entry is in effect, this standard is replaced with a completely new standard called “reasonable probability”—which the regulation defines as “substantially higher” than reasonable possibility, and “somewhat lower” than a “more likely than not” standard.

Those who are deemed ineligible for asylum can still remain in the U.S. under international protections — specifically under the Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal, which is a form of relief for migrants who fear persecution, as explained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

However, the Biden administration has also tightened those standards, the senior official said in the June 4 press briefing.

“I think individuals who do manifest a fear and are ineligible for asylum as a result of the rules measures will be screened for our international obligations under withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture at a ‘reasonable probability’ standard, which will be a substantially higher standard than the ‘significant possibility’ standard that is being used today, while still somewhat below the ultimate merits standard of ‘more likely than not,’” the senior official said.

“I think the bottom line is that the standard will be significantly higher,” the official added. “And so, we do anticipate that fewer individuals will be screened in as a result.”

Those who will be unaffected by the new rules include children who illegally enter the U.S. without a parent, adult family member or guardian. But relatively few border crossers are unaccompanied children. In fiscal year 2023, they made up only 5.3% of border encounters, according to CBP.

Human trafficking victims, who are also exempt from the new rules and eligible for a so-called T visa, make up an even smaller number.

“In FY 2023, USCIS received its highest number of T visa applications (8,598) in a single year and approved the highest number of T visa applications in a single year (2,181),” USCIS said in an April report to Congress. In addition, 1,495 eligible family members of trafficking victims were also granted T visas.

Under what legal authority did Biden act?

Biden primarily relies on section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Section 212(f) of the INA reads: “[W]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

An “alien” under U.S. code is anyone who isn’t a citizen or national of the U.S.

Biden’s proclamation says that “absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described” in the proclamation “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The proclamation also cites section 215(a) of the INA, which concerns travel restrictions, and part of the U.S. code that gives the president authority to delegate functions to agency heads. Section 215(a) of the INA says, in part, that it’s unlawful, unless the president orders otherwise, “for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

Will it be challenged in court?

Yes. The American Civil Liberties Union has already said it will challenge Biden’s executive action in court. “It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a press release.

The ACLU and other groups filed suit over an asylum ban instituted by former President Donald Trump’s administration, and the courts blocked Trump’s regulations from taking effect. The ACLU says that ban “took the same approach” as Biden’s action — invoking section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A senior Biden administration official, however, told reporters that there are “humanitarian exceptions” and “important exceptions for individuals entering through lawful pathways” in Biden’s proclamation.

As we’ve explained before, Trump issued a proclamation in November 2018 barring the entry of migrants unless they entered at ports of entry. At the same time, the administration issued regulations making those who entered the U.S. illegally between ports of entry ineligible for asylum.

A federal District Court judge in California halted Trump’s effort; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court both denied the Trump administration’s motions to stop the District Court’s ruling. The appeals court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s order in February 2020.

“The President does not have the authority to close the border under 212(f),” Denise Gilman, co-director of the Immigration Clinic and law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told us via email when we wrote about this issue in February. 

Other provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act “make very clear that all persons arriving at the border or entering the United States, without regard to status, must be processed for asylum if they indicate a fear of return to their home countries,” Gilman said. “These provisions cannot simply be trumped by 212(f). Under current law, they must be given effect and asylum seekers must be able to present their claims.”

When the bipartisan group of senators released the text of an immigration overhaul bill in February, Trump and other Republicans claimed then that Biden had “the right” to shut down the border, without legislation from Congress. But the claim was dubious, given Trump’s attempt and legal failure to do so.

Now, Biden is trying to implement a version of a border shutdown, with “exceptions” that the administration expects will allow the order to hold up in court.

It’s unclear if that will happen. In a report on Biden’s actions, the American Immigration Council said that whether the 212(f) presidential authority “may be used to address purely domestic policy concerns remains an unsettled area of law.”

“For more than 40 years, U.S. law has been clear: all people physically present or arriving in the United States may seek asylum. No president can erase that law from the books with the stroke of a pen,” Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council, said in a June 5 press release that noted the “legal uncertainty” around this issue.

How does this compare with the bipartisan plan that Biden supported?

Biden’s action is similar to the border authority provisions of the bipartisan Senate plan that failed in Congress — but differs on the specifics.

The plan, which was unveiled in early February as part of a foreign aid bill, stated that the Department of Homeland Security secretary would automatically activate temporary border emergency authority to prohibit entry of migrants between ports of entry, except for unaccompanied children, if there is an average of 5,000 or more migrant encounters a day over seven consecutive days — or if there are 8,500 or more such encounters on any single day, as we have reported before.

The Homeland Security secretary also would have “discretionary activation” authority if there is an average of 4,000 or more encounters over seven consecutive days. The bill included an exception for migrants who said they had a fear of persecution if returned to their countries, if they demonstrated a “reasonable possibility” of such during an interview with an asylum officer.

As we’ve explained, Biden’s proclamation sets a lower threshold for activating its restrictions on asylum eligibility — a daily average of 2,500 encounters or more for seven straight days.

A major difference between Biden’s proclamation and the Senate bill is that the legislation appropriated money. The bill included funding for more border barriers, expanded detention facilities, and more personnel, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents, asylum officers, and immigration judges.

But getting legislation through Congress is much tougher than issuing a proclamation. The Senate plan faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. On Feb. 7, the bill failed after all but four Republicans and a few Democrats opposed it, and it failed again in May, when Democrats tried to advance it on a procedural vote.  

What’s the reaction of Republicans? Democrats?

Several Republicans, including Trump, have said Biden’s proclamation doesn’t do enough.

On social media, Trump posted a meme, which appears to have been left over from his criticism of the Senate immigration plan, wrongly claiming that Biden’s action “allows at least 5,000 illegal entries per day.” It doesn’t, and neither did the Senate legislation.

As one of the architects of the bill, Republican Sen. James Lankford, said of the measure in February, “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. … If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”

Biden’s proclamation set a threshold of 2,500 average encounters. So Trump’s meme is both wrong and outdated.

In a video, also posted on social media, Trump said Biden’s order was “weak,” and claimed: “All he had to do is say, ‘Close the border.’ That’s the power of the presidency.” But, again, Trump tried to shut down the border and was blocked by the courts. (For more on that, see the section above on whether Biden’s proclamation will be challenged in court.)

Trump also wrongly said that “up to 20 million people” had been allowed in under Biden. There’s no evidence for such a figure. We found that from February 2021 through October 2023, 2.5 million people encountered at the southern border had been released into the U.S. with notices to appear in immigration court or report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the future, or other classifications, such as parole. That’s according to DHS statistics. There were also an estimated 1.6 million so-called “gotaways,” meaning people who crossed the border by evading the authorities.

Democrats were divided over the president’s plan.

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters that Biden should “secure our border while opening up more legal pathways” and expressed concern that the proclamation “is just the enforcement only side of the strategy.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was even more critical of the order, saying in a statement that it was “extremely disappointing” and a “dangerous step in the wrong direction.”

“While there are some differences from Trump’s actions, the reality is that this utilizes the same failed enforcement-only approach, penalizes asylum seekers, and furthers a false narrative that these actions will ‘fix’ the border,” she said.

Biden’s proposal received a warmer reception from House members in the New Democrat Coalition, who issued a joint statement saying they were “encouraged” by the order, which they called a “commonsense action to restore order at the southern border.”

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in remarks on the Senate floor, said that “legislation would have been the more effective way to go,” but added that Biden was “left with little choice but to act on his own” because of Republican inaction.

---

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, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on May 30. Now Bragg has become the target of viral social media posts that claim, without evidence, that he has a net worth of $42 million or more and baselessly imply that Bragg is corrupt.

---

Full Story

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to influence the 2016 election by concealing payments he made to an adult-film star. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who guided the prosecution of the case against Trump, announced the verdict reached by a New York State Supreme Court jury on May 30.

The district attorney’s office will provide a memo to Justice Juan Merchan with recommendations for Trump’s sentencing, which is scheduled for July 11.

Bragg’s role in the historic case, in which Trump became the first current or former U.S. president to be convicted of a criminal offense, has made him a target of unsupported claims on social media about his financial holdings.  

A widely shared meme posted May 30 on Facebook, showing a photo of Bragg, claims, “Net Worth: $42 Million[.] His Net Worth Has Grown 300% The Past 5 Years[.] He Owns 12 Properties, 8 Cars, and 3 Luxury Yachts[.] How Did DA Bragg Become So Wealthy?” Comments on the post call Bragg “crooked” and “corrupt.”

A May 31 Facebook post inflates Bragg’s purported net worth even more, saying, “How on earth did Alvin Bragg amass wealth of nearly $45 MILLION NET on an annual salary of app. $220,000 +- as DA?”

The May 30 post cites @RickyDoggin, a social media account titled “A Man of Memes,” who describes himself as a “Patriot – Fighting Back Against Liberal Insanity One Meme At A Time… Views expressed here are MY Opinions and nothing more.”

The posts are not marked as opinion, however, and cite no other sources for the claims about Bragg’s net worth.

New York City’s Annual Disclosure Law requires elected officials to file yearly reports listing their financial interests. Bragg’s most recent New York City Conflicts of Interest Board financial disclosure report for 2022 showed his financial holdings were nowhere near the claims in the posts.

The report showed Bragg received $100,000 to $249,999.99 for his annual income as district attorney; $5,000 to $54,999.99 in retirement plan distributions from the City University of New York; and $5,000 to $54,999.99 in dividends and distributions from a TIAA retirement account. The report also listed a Charles Schwab managed account valued at $5,000 to $54,999.99; an individual retirement account valued at $60,000 to $99,999.99; an IRA valued at $100,000 to $249,999.99; an IRA valued at $250,000 to $499,999.99; another IRA valued at $250,000 to $499,999.99; a retirement plan valued at $60,000 to $99,999.99; and “$500,000 or more” in a trust or estate, which Bragg wrote was “money that was in a bank account for the estate of my late mother.”

The report also showed two real estate holdings — a property in New York City that Bragg wrote was owned by his late mother and was sold in 2022 for “$500,000 or more” and a property in Petersburg, Virginia, that was owned by his grandmother and was valued at $100,000 to $249,999.99. New York City records show that Bragg’s mother’s house was sold in April 2022 for $2,250,000.

The conservative website the Dispatch debunked the recent posts about Bragg’s personal finances on June 3, and reported that similar claims appeared on social media in July 2022 and April 2023, shortly after Trump was indicted in New York.

We could find no reports or evidence that Bragg owns “12 Properties, 8 Cars, and 3 Luxury Yachts,” as the meme claimed. And his total financial holdings, based on his disclosure forms and the sale of his mother’s property, add up to about $4.6 million — not $42 million.

We reached out to the Manhattan district attorney’s office for comment on the social media posts, but we didn’t receive a response.

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

Bellafante, Ginia. “Alvin Bragg’s Next Decision on Trump Presents a Political Quandary.” New York Times. 7 Jun 2024.

Breuninger, Kevin. “Trump has been convicted. Here’s what happens next.” CNBC. Updated 31 May 2024.

Demas, Alex. “No Evidence Supports Claims That Alvin Bragg Is Worth $42 Million.” The Dispatch. 3 Jun 2024.

District Attorney of New York County. “Alvin Bragg: A lifetime of hard work, courage and demanding justice.” Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

District Attorney of New York County. “D.A. Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trial Conviction of Donald J. Trump.” 30 May 2024.

Farley, Robert, D’Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Eugene Kiely. “Q&A on Trump’s Criminal Conviction.” FactCheck.org. 31 May 2024.

New York City Conflict of Interests Board. The Annual Disclosure Law. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

New York City Conflict of Interests Board. Report for Alvin Bragg. Public Report for 2022. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

New York City Department of Finance. Office of the City Register. Document ID 2022040700872001. Deed for the Estate of Sadie Chavis Bragg. Accessed 7 Jun 2024.

Sisak, Michael R., et al. “Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes.” Associated Press. Updated 31 May 2024.

Claim:

Actor Terrence Howard holds a patent on augmented and virtual reality technology.

Rating:

Context

Howard did file a patent application related to augmented and virtual reality technology in 2010. However, in 2013, this application was abandoned prior to being approved, which means Howard was ultimately not granted a patent for this technology.

On the May 18, 2024, episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, “Hustle & Flow” actor Terrence Howard told host Rogan that he holds multiple patents, including the first one for augmented and virtual reality technology.

Howard told Rogan, “People say, ‘What business do you have coming in here talking about science and all that? You’re an actor.’ You want to know what my first patent was? The entire AR/VR [augmented reality/virtual reality] world was built off of my first patent that was abandoned, because I paid $260,000 for the worldwide patent. But then my agents, my lawyers kept sending me these maintenance fees and annuities, and I’m like, these folks are just trying to shake me down. I’m not gonna pay this.”

Here’s a snippet of Howard’s podcast appearance, in which he informs Rogan of his AR/VR patent application:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFl7mUAZqxE

“If you pull up my ‘World of Windows’ patent, I think it’s one of the first patents up there,” Howard said. “I want you to see where your AR/VR world came from. And you look at the list of companies that has cited and didn’t just cite it. They built their entire AR/VR world off of my ‘World of Windows’ patent.”

It’s true that, in 2010, Howard filed patent application US12/765,485, with the publication number US20100271394A1, titled “World of Windows,” which relates to augmented and virtual reality technology, specifically a system for merging virtual reality with real-world sensory experiences. However, this application was abandoned in 2013, due to a “Failure to Respond to an Office Action,” which means he does not presently hold an active patent for this technology.

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Howard’s 2010 patent application was for a “System and method for merging virtual reality and reality to provide an enhanced sensory experience.”

On the podcast, Rogan read Howard’s patent abstract out loud for the audience:

“A system and method of merging virtual reality sensory detail from a remote site into a room environment at a local site. The system preferably includes at least one image server; a plurality of image collection devices; a display system, comprising display devices, a control unit, digital processor and a viewer position detector. The control unit preferably receives the viewer position information and transmits instructions to the digital processor. The digital processor preferably processes source data representing an aggregated field of view from the image capturing devices in accordance with the instructions received from the control unit and outputs refined data representing a desired display view to be displayed on the one or more display devices wherein the viewer position detector dynamically determines the position of the viewer in the room environment and changes the desired display view corresponding to position changes of the viewer.”

Howard, who further claimed he’s filed 97 patents for various inventions including jewelry design and children’s toys, told Rogan that “the universe backs me up and I have the proof of it,” suggesting that many physicists do not have his pedigree when it comes to holding exclusive rights to an invention. “None of them have introduced a new form of flight with unlimited midair bonding. None of them have discovered four super symmetrical systems. This is what we’ve done. This is what the collective is able to do. When you put yourself into the divine space.” 

The “Empire” star expressed regret over not pursuing the AR/VR patent further, as he believed it had significant financial potential. The patent application notes it has been cited 31 times in patents filed by such companies as Sony, Microsoft, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard, Raytheon and IBM. But while these companies may indeed have referenced Howard’s patent application in building their own AR/VR technology, it’s unclear whether they also used any of his proprietary prototypes, specs or technology. It should also be pointed out that citing prior patent applications (such as Howard’s) doesn’t mean a potential patent holder agrees with or finds value in them; it simply shows that the applicant is aware of them and has considered their relevance, which can make the newer application stronger and more credible.

Over the course of his three-hour-plus interview with Rogan, Howard also shared his insights on the theory of gravity, telling the podcaster, “We’re about to kill gravity. We’re about to kill their God, gravity, and they don’t want that,” before continuing, “What I would love to do is invite Neil deGrasse [Tyson] and David Tong, or any astrophysicist, any chemist, anyone in any field of science, to sit down with me and examine these patents, examine the super-symmetrical systems that I’ve developed.”

Filing a patent application is different from holding a patent. When you file for a patent — say, with the USPTO — it’s a formal submission to a government authority seeking exclusive territorial rights to an invention.

But the act of filing, in which the filer provides a detailed description and claims, doesn’t mean the applicant automatically get those rights. Over the course of several years, a patent examiner audits an application to see if the invention meets certain rules, evaluating for novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness, conducting searches for prior art and technology, assessing claims made in the applications, and communicating findings. If the invention passes this evaluation by a patent examiner, the applicant is granted a patent. Being a patent holder means one has legal protection against unauthorized making, using, selling or importing of the invention, and that one legally owns exclusive rights to the invention for a certain time, usually 20 years, within a particular country or region. So, while filing is an important step, it’s receiving the patent grant that confers those rights.

Howard’s patent application number, US12/765,485, was assigned when he filed his patent application on April 22, 2010, serving as a tracking identifier during the examination process before ultimate approval or rejection of his patent. He also received a publication number, US20100271394A1, on Oct. 28, 2010, which is another step in the patent process. However, he never received a unique patent number signifying the patent was granted, because he abandoned the patent in 2013, which he claimed was due to financial concerns, before it could be granted. 

“This patent has earned over $7 trillion. And I haven’t gotten a penny,” Howard told Rogan. “Now there’s eight years in which I would be making money off it but what they didn’t know is they didn’t understand how it was really supposed to work. So, they’ve just been taking this gun and been using it as a bat. And if they wanted to know I could show them how it really, really works but this is proof that my stuff is legit.”

Snopes has previously written about patents, including Ford Global Technologies’ patent application for a self-drive vehicle that can repossess itself, and Sony’s patent for an interactive system that allows viewers to skip advertisements by yelling the brand name of the advertiser at their TV or monitor.

SciCheck Digest

Antarctica is losing ice mass to the ocean, contributing to global sea level rise. But a popular video misrepresented work focused on Antarctic ice shelves — which float in the sea at the edges of the continent — to incorrectly suggest that “it is unclear if Antarctica is losing any ice on balance.”

---

Full Story

The Antarctic ice sheet is a vast mass of ice, accumulated over millennia via snowfall, that sits atop bedrock, covering nearly all of Antarctica. As the ice spreads outward and meets the ocean, some of it begins to float. These floating ice platforms, which surround about three-quarters of Antarctica, are called ice shelves.

Antarctic land ice loss into the ocean is an increasingly important contributor to global sea level rise. In contrast, ice shelf loss doesn’t directly cause sea level rise, as the ice is already floating in the ocean and displacing water. However, ice shelf changes can contribute to land ice loss, as ice shelves in some areas buttress land ice and slow its descent into the ocean.

A popular video from the Heartland Institute — which has a long history of casting doubt on climate science — minimized the significance of Antarctic ice loss and then questioned whether it’s happening at all. “The truth is, it is unclear if Antarctica is losing any ice on balance or if it’s currently experiencing a net gain,” the video’s narrator inaccurately said, citing two scientific papers.

“The statement is false,” Chad Greene, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told us in an email. “Antarctica has been losing sea ice, grounded ice, and floating ice shelf mass over the past few decades. Satellite analysis from NASA groups show trends of ice loss, and the same trends have been reported by independent research groups from around the world.”

We reached out to the Heartland Institute with questions about the video but have not gotten a reply. The video was originally posted on Facebook and YouTube but is no longer available on Facebook.

The first paper mentioned in the video to back up the claim is a 2015 study by NASA researchers. They found that from 1992 to 2001 and 2003 to 2008, Antarctica gained ice mass. 

But other studies disagree with the finding that Antarctica was gaining ice, and a NASA press release about the study now contains a message saying, “The findings reported here conflict with over a decade of other measurements, including previous NASA studies.”

“[M]ore recent work shows clearly that on balance Antarctica is losing mass,” Jonathan Kingslake, who studies ice sheet evolution at Columbia Climate School’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told us in an email. 

According to measurements from NASA satellites, since 2002 Antarctica has been losing an average of 140 billion metric tons of ice mass per year.

The Heartland Institute video went on to incorrectly state that a 2023 paper looking at data from 2009 to 2019 confirmed the 2015 NASA findings. However, that paper looked at Antarctic ice shelf area — the floating ice at the edges of the continent, as we explained — and not ice sheet mass overall. Saying that the 2023 paper confirmed the earlier NASA findings “is totally misleading,” Kingslake said.

Additionally, data from a longer time frame does show loss of Antarctic ice shelf area, Greene said.

The Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the latest report from this United Nations body — found that both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets have been “losing mass since at least 1990, with the highest loss rate during 2010–2019” — a statement made with “high confidence.” And the ice sheet mass loss is expected to continue.

Antarctic Ice Loss Is Consequential

Earlier in the Heartland Institute video, the narrator did acknowledge Antarctic ice loss but minimized its importance.

“The media claims that Antarctica is losing ice six or more times faster than it was a few decades ago,” the video said. “But Antarctica was barely losing ice back then and it still is barely losing ice compared to its overall ice mass. Some satellite measurements estimate that the total ice loss each year from Antarctica is 3/10,000 of 1% of the continent’s ice mass. That’s not much.”

Media outlets have reported, based on various studies, that the Antarctic ice sheet as of the 2010s was melting six times faster than in the 1980s, or that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets combined were losing ice six times faster in the 2010s than in the 1990s.

It’s correct that Antarctica “is barely losing ice compared to its overall ice mass,” as the video said, given that Antarctica’s total ice mass is very large, Helen Amanda Fricker, a professor at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told us in a written response to our questions. But “I would turn this around and say that even a small % of a large number is not inconsequential,” she said. The Antarctic ice sheet contains enough ice — if it all melted — to raise sea level by 57 meters, or 187 feet, she said.

Oceanographer Laurence Padman, president and senior scientist at Earth and Space Research, a nonprofit research institute, told us that he couldn’t argue with the fraction of ice lost given in the video, based on rough calculations and given variation and uncertainties in annual ice loss. But “the important number is the sea level rise, not the fraction of the Antarctic ice sheet that is lost,” he said in a written response to our questions.

As of 2018, the global average sea level had risen by 7 to 15 centimeters (almost 3 to 6 inches) since 1971, according to the latest IPCC report, and was projected to rise by 10 to 25 centimeters (about 4 to 10 inches) more by 2050, even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet caused 7% of sea level rise between 1971 and 2018, but its contribution to sea level rise has increased and will continue to increase.

Since 2016, the Antarctic ice sheet has been responsible for 14% of sea level rise, according to the IPCC report. In a low-emissions scenario, the Antarctic ice sheet could contribute to more than 20% of sea level rise by 2100, according to a graphic in the report’s FAQ section.

Lizz Ultee, a glaciologist at Middlebury College, explained that sea level rise is driven by two main processes: ocean water expansion as it gets warmer and melting of ice into the ocean. 

Mountain glaciers melt more quickly due to warming temperatures than ice sheets because mountain glaciers are smaller, Ultee explained. But the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are playing an increasing role in sea level rise.

Currently, Greenland, which has a smaller ice sheet than Antarctica, is losing ice mass at a faster rate, but in the long term, Antarctica “has the most potential to contribute to very large sea level changes,” Ultee said. 

Antarctic ice sheet loss will probably lead to up to about 0.3 meters, or nearly 1 foot, of sea level rise by 2100, she said, and total sea level rise could be about half a meter to a meter (1.6 to 3.3 feet) by that time. Even if humans were to stop contributing to climate change by 2100, she said, Antarctica would continue to lose ice mass and contribute to sea level rise for centuries.

About a meter of sea level rise in 2100 would flood the homes of about 4 million people in the U.S., Ultee said, an estimate that doesn’t include people who would be at risk from higher storm surges or more frequent tidal flooding, or who would be cut off from essential services.

The Eastern Gulf of Mexico — from the Mississippi Delta to Florida — has already experienced some of the fastest rates of local sea level rise in the U.S., according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Important Role of Ice Shelves

As we’ve said, the Heartland Institute video also misrepresented data on ice shelves, incorrectly claiming a 2023 paper confirmed that the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining mass.

The 2023 paper, published in the Cryosphere, used satellite data to analyze the area of Antarctic ice shelves between 2009 and 2019, finding that 16 ice shelves grew in area and 18 got smaller. This translated to a net gain of 5,305 square kilometers in total ice shelf area, representing an increase of 0.4%. 

But “this paper is about Antarctic ice shelves, which are only the floating portions of the ice in Antarctica,” Ultee said. Ice shelves are made up of ice that has flowed from the continent outward to the ocean and is floating. (Sea ice, which forms seasonally from the ocean and also floats, is distinct from ice shelves.)

The work “does not support the assertion that the Antarctic ice sheet is not losing mass,” Ultee said.

Padman also said that the Cryosphere paper looked at one specific time period that doesn’t represent the full history of Antarctic ice shelf loss. Prior work, published in Nature in 2022, showed that Antarctic ice shelves lost 35,000 square kilometers of area between 1997 and 2004. The Cryosphere paper showed the ice shelves regaining “only about 15% of the earlier loss,” he said.

Greene, the NASA scientist, co-authored the Nature paper. In that study, “we used a longer, 24 year baseline and found overwhelming loss of ice shelf area since 1997,” he said. “We then looked at the calving history of the biggest ice shelves and found that they are all on track for major calving events in the next 10 or 15 years … meaning Antarctica as a whole is losing ice shelf mass overall.” (Ice shelf calving occurs when chunks of ice break off into the ocean.)

Additionally, ice shelf loss in specific areas is significant and indirectly influences sea level rise, experts told us.

“Ice shelves don’t directly contribute to sea level rise when they melt but rather, they act like buttresses to glaciers, keeping the ice from simply sliding into the ocean,” Greene said.

Padman added that “some areas of ice shelves affect ‘buttressing’ of grounded ice, while other areas don’t.” The ice shelves shown to be losing ice in the Cryosphere paper — many in West Antarctica — tend to be more important for buttressing the ice sheet than the ice shelves that are gaining ice.

“Even if East Antarctic ice shelves are gaining area and the West Antarctic is losing area, we still really care about the West Antarctic ice shelf area,” Ultee said.

---

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

Sources

“Ice Sheets.” National Snow and Ice Data Center. Accessed 5 June 2024.

Padman, Laurie et al. “Confused about ice shelf decay and sea ice increase?” Scripps Glaciology Group website. Accessed 5 June 2024.

“Is an East Antarctic Melt Likely?” National Snow and Ice Data Center. Updated 17 Feb 2022.

Andreasen, Julia R. et al. “Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019.” The Cryosphere. 16 May 2023.

Fox-Kemper, B. et al. “2021: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change.” Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1211–1362.

Otosaka, Inès N. et al. “Mass Balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from 1992 to 2020.” Earth System Science Data. 20 Apr 2023.

“Regional fact sheet – Polar Regions.” Sixth Assessment Report: Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

Hanna, Edward et al. “Short- and Long-Term Variability of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 8 Feb 2024.

“The Heartland Institute.” DeSmog Climate Disinformation Database. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

The Heartland Institute (@HeartlandInstitute). “The media claims that Antarctica is losing ice 6 or more times faster than it was a few decades ago.” YouTube. 21 May 2024.

Heartland Institute. “The media claims that Antarctica is losing ice 6 or more time faster than it was a few decades ago. But in reality, it’s barely losing ice back then or now! …” Facebook. 

Greene, Chad. Email to FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2024.

Zwally, H. Jay et al. “Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses.” Journal of Glaciology. 2015.

Petersen, Kate S. “Fact Check: NASA Antarctic Ice Sheet Data Consistent with Global Warming.” USA Today. 24 Mar 2023.

“Study: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses.” NASA website. 5 Nov 2015.

Kingslake, Jonathan. Email to FactCheck.org. 29 May 2024.

“Ice Sheets.” NASA website. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

Rice, Doyle. “Antarctic Ice Melting 6 Times Faster than It Did in ’80s.” USA Today. Updated 15 Jan 2024.

Carrington, Damian. “Polar Ice Caps Melting Six Times Faster than in 1990s.” The Guardian. 11 Mar 2020.

“Greenland, Antarctica Melting Six Times Faster Than in the 1990s.” NASA website. 16 Mar 2020.

Fricker, Helen Amanda. Correspondence with FactCheck.org. 28 May 2024.

Padman, Laurence. Correspondence with FactCheck.org. 29 May 2024 and 31 May 2024.

Ultee, Lizz. Phone call and emails with Factcheck.org. 31 May 2024, 5 Jun 2024 and 6 Jun 2024.

“Sea Level.” NASA website. Accessed 6 Jun 2024.

Hauer, Mathew E. et al. “Millions Projected to Be at Risk from Sea-Level Rise in the Continental United States.” Nature Climate Change. 14 Mar 2016.

Greene, Chad A. et al. “Antarctic Calving Loss Rivals Ice-Shelf Thinning.” Nature. 10 Aug 2022.

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

The total U.S. trade deficit with China in goods and services in 2023 was about $252 billion, the lowest it has been in 14 years. Former President Donald Trump was way off when he falsely claimed that the U.S.-China trade gap is about four times as high.

“Right now, we have the largest deficit we’ve ever had with China, like over a trillion dollars,” Trump said in an interview for Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show,” which was posted online June 3. “Think of how bad that is. Too much. You can’t sustain that.”

Trump made the claim when talking about his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “He respected me,” Trump said, claiming that “they don’t respect” President Joe Biden “at all.”

While Trump portrays bilateral trade deficits as a negative, many economists do not believe that they necessarily are. For example, Robert Z. Lawrence and Yeling Tan, the lead authors of a strategic brief for the Global Future Council on International Trade and Investment, said the ideas that “trade deficits are bad” and “[b]ilateral trade between countries should be balanced” are misconceptions.

Regardless, Trump was wrong about the size of the imbalance in exports and imports between the U.S. and China — and he wasn’t even close, as the chart below shows.

The U.S. had a trade deficit with China in goods and services of roughly $252 billion in 2023, according to revised figures the Bureau of Economic Analysis released June 6. The deficit in goods trading was about $279 billion for the year, but that was partially offset by a roughly $27 billion surplus in the trading of services — which can include travel, transportation, finance and intellectual property.

In fact, last year’s total trade gap with China was lower than it was in each year of Trump’s presidency. It also was the lowest since the $220 billion deficit in 2009.

BEA data going back to 1999 show that the highest total U.S.-China trade deficit in goods and services was about $378 billion in 2018 — when Trump was in office. In 2022, the deficit was $366 billion, the highest figure among Biden’s three years in office.

The former president has been exaggerating the U.S. trade deficit with China, and other countries, for years, dating to the 2016 campaign and in justifying his trade policies when in office. He used to regularly claim that the deficit with China was $500 billion, which also was incorrect. His latest assertion that the deficit is “over a trillion dollars” is even further off the mark.

---

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, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

Quick Take

A photo taken in January shows a large tunnel under Gaza’s northern border with Israel, reportedly used in the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas. But recent social media posts falsely claim that the photo shows a tunnel connecting Egypt with the southern Gaza city of Rafah — where Palestinians displaced by the Israel-Hamas war have been sheltering.

---

Full Story

More than a million people fleeing the Israel-Hamas war had been sheltering in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah when, on May 26, the Israeli military struck a refugee encampment, killing at least 45 — most of whom were women and children — according to the Gaza health ministry.

That strike, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “tragic mishap,” and worsening conditions in Rafah have kept the area in the news. Now, it is the target of misinformation.

Israel closed the border with Egypt on May 7, shutting off a major route for humanitarian aid and depriving people there of food and medicine. On May 24, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ordered Israel to end military operations in Rafah and open the border, which Israel has not done.

Now, posts are circulating on social media that claim to show a picture of “One of 50 Tunnels the size of motorways Israel has discovered connecting Rafah to Egypt.”

Social media users are responding to the posts with messages that indicate the tunnel justifies Israel’s actions in Rafah. For example, one user wrote, “No wonder they resisted Israel’s invasion of Rafa! They all new what was under cover there! Go for it Israel, consume anything along your path to victory!”

But the picture actually shows a tunnel that was photographed in January on the opposite end of the Gaza Strip at the Erez border crossing into Israel.

The caption accompanying the original photo, as shown on the Getty Images website, says: “A view inside a tunnel that Hamas reportedly used on October 7th to attack Israel through the Erez border crossing on January 07, 2024 in Northern Gaza. As the IDF have pressed into Gaza as part of their campaign to defeat Hamas, they have highlighted the militant group’s extensive tunnel network as emblematic of the way the group embeds itself and its military activity in civilian areas.”

The Israeli military said it has found multiple tunnels on the southern end of Gaza, which borders Egypt. That corridor “served as the oxygen line of Hamas through which Hamas carried out weapons smuggling into Gaza on a regular basis,” Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, Israel’s military chief spokesperson, said in May.

But the photo circulating in these social media posts does not show one of those tunnels.

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

United Nations. “Conditions in Gaza are ‘unspeakable’ as one million people flee Rafah: UNRWA.” 3 Jun 2024.

Mackintosh, Thomas and David Gritten. “Dozens reported killed in Israeli strike on Rafah.” BBC. 27 May 2024.

Goldenberg, Tia, Melanie Lidman and Samy Magdy. “Netanyahu says deadly Israeli strike in Rafah was the result of a ‘tragic mishap.’” Associated Press. 28 May 2024.

United Nations. “World court orders Israel to halt military operations in Rafah.” 27 May 2024.

International Court of Justice. Order. APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP. 24 May 2024.

Galai, Noam. “Israeli Forces Highlight Alleged Hamas Infrastructure In Northern Gaza.” Getty Images. 7 Jan 2024.

PBS. “Israel seizes control of strategic Gaza land border, claims area is awash in smuggling tunnels.” 30 May 2024.

Claim:

Elizabeth Taylor once said, “There is no gay agenda. It’s a human agenda. All of us should be treated the same […] long live love.”

Rating:

Over several years, many on social media attributed a viral quote on gay rights to famed actor Elizabeth Taylor. Taylor reportedly said, “There is no gay agenda. It’s a human agenda. All of us should be treated the same … long live love.”

The post was shared on Pinterest, and X and has been reposted yearly around Pride Month, which takes place in June. 

(Pinterest via fckh8.com)

The above quote is real and is an abbreviated version of a speech Taylor made in 2000, when she received an award for her HIV/AIDS advocacy during the 1980s and long-time support of gay rights. The award was given to her by GLAAD, an LGBTQ rights organization. As such, we rate this claim as a “Correct Attribution.”

The full speech is available on GLAAD’s verified YouTube page, and the organization’s official social media accounts have shared snippets. Taylor began the speech by talking about her HIV/AIDS advocacy and how the relatively new disease led to rampant discrimination against gay people in the 1980s. “For god’s sake, our president [referring to Ronald Reagan] didn’t even utter the word “AIDS” for years into the epidemic,” she said. “So I got involved.” She also used her speech to advocate for legal rights for gay couples, including marriage and adoption. 

The statement in question emerges at the 3:50 mark in the YouTube video (emphasis, ours):

All of my life I’ve spent a lot of time with gay men: Montgomery Clift, Jimmy Dean, Rock Hudson, who were my colleagues, coworkers, confidants, my closest friends. But I never thought of them [of] who they slept with. They were just the people I loved. I could never understand why they couldn’t be afforded the same rights and protections as the rest of us. There is no gay agenda. It’s a human agenda. All of us should be treated the same, and GLAAD knows that. Why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to marry? Those against gay marriages say marriage should only be between a man and a woman. God, I of all people know that doesn’t always work. I feel that any home where there is love, constitutes a family, and all families should have the same legal rights including the rights to marry and have, or adopt children. 

She concluded her speech by saying “Long live love.” 

The same section of the speech was shared by her verified Instagram account, run by House of Taylor, which oversees her archive and AIDS Foundation, and has ownership of her name and likeness. House of Taylor also released a Pride-themed T-shirt in June 2024, with Taylor’s quote printed on the back. 

The House of Taylor wrote about her advocacy work on its website:

Already deeply saddened by the inhumane hardships she witnessed her friends – such as prominent actors Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Rock Hudson and Roddy McDowall, who she shared strong connections with from an early age – experience in the face of bigotry and at the hands of the vicious disease, Elizabeth’s fight against HIV/AIDS ramped up with the death of her dear friend Rock Hudson, who died from complications of AIDS in 1985. Devastated by the loss of her friend and colleague, and frustrated by the public’s dismissal of the disease, Elizabeth helped co-found The Foundation for AIDS Research that year – currently known as amfAR – which is still considered to be the world’s top organization for AIDS research today. She also successfully lobbied former president Ronald Reagan to address the crisis at a time when he, along with most of the American public, were turning a blind eye to the destitution inflicted by the disease as it affected a community of people they largely considered ‘less than.’ In 1986, Elizabeth testified before Congress to advocate for additional HIV/AIDS funding and research. 

Claim:

Plastic water bottle caps are color coded based on the type of water: blue caps indicate “spring water”; black caps signify alkaline water; green caps signal flavored water, and white caps mean “processed water.”

Rating:

Everyone knows it’s important to stay hydrated. If you’re working toward that goal by drinking water out of plastic bottles, this rumor may interest you: Viral posts claim the bottles’ caps are color coded to tell you how your water was produced.

Snopes found examples of the claim on Instagram in early 2024, but as far as we could tell, the claim originated on TikTok sometime before 2024. These social media posts claim white caps signify the water was “processed” — although it’s unclear exactly what “processed” water means. Meanwhile, green caps supposedly mean the water is flavored; blue caps allegedly signify spring water (the water is bottled not long after it naturally comes out of the ground), and black caps purportedly indicate alkaline water.

Stop buying water until you know this secret: Every water color cap has a different meaning. Black is for alkaline water, blue is from spring, white is for processed and green is usually flavored spring water.”

The claim, however, is not true.

In the United States, two agencies regulate bottled water: the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. However, based on Snopes’ analysis of FDA and EPA guidelines, neither organization has any rules or regulations regarding color-coded caps.

Some brands use caps that match the alleged “rules,” like the black caps on Essentia Alkaline Water. But many brands break the purported coding system’s rules. Fiji Water, which exclusively uses a blue cap, doesn’t come from a spring. Meanwhile, Crystal Geyser’s water does come from a spring but generally uses white caps. And the TikTok guidelines definitely don’t account for Aquafina bottles with different-colored caps.

Furthermore, the system proposed by the viral social media posts doesn’t account for flip-top or “sport caps,” which often have different colors from standard twist-off bottles. The rumor also does not consider canned water, produced by companies such as Liquid Death.

In other words, bottled water manufacturers in the U.S. decide how to design their caps — including their colors — and those decisions are independent from one another.

That said, some companies have set up color-coding systems to note differences in their own products.

For example, San Benedetto, a bottled water company based in Italy, gives its sparkling water a blue cap and still water a red cap. And in Italy, where asking for water at a restaurant will likely inspire a follow-up question — “sparkling or still?” — the color coding is clever design; the caps might tip off a still-water drinker before they get a mouthful of fizzy water, and vice versa.

We stopped by a few grocery stores in the Chicago area to do an informal survey of water bottle caps. While we found several “violators,” — Kroger-branded flavored water with a white top, for instance — there was enough of a pattern that we could see why people believed the claim.

In particular, we found black caps were a good indicator of alkaline water, as suggested by the posts, but not all alkaline water bottles had black caps. Green caps were almost nonexistent (except for Dasani), despite the presence of flavored water. Blue caps were just as likely to be spring water as they were sport caps (and Aquafina was neither, but still had a blue cap). Most water bottles we saw had white caps, regardless of the source or type of water. 

In sum, caps that follow the purported meanings appear to be coincidences — not evidence of a widespread system practiced by all bottled water companies.

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

President Joe Biden punctuated a campaign speech in Philadelphia with the phrase “a promise made and a promise kept,” when chronicling several actions his administration has taken. But in a few cases, he hasn’t kept the promise or he misleadingly described his accomplishments.

• Biden said the wealth gap between white and Black Americans is “the lowest it’s been in 20 years,” and he took credit. A 2023 paper from Federal Reserve Board staffers does show that the wealth ratio between white and Black families in 2022 was the smallest in 20 years, but the gap in raw dollars was the widest it had been since 1989.

• Biden exaggerated in saying he was “keeping my promises that no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana.” He has issued pardons, but only retroactively and for people convicted under federal or D.C. laws. It’s unclear if anyone has been released from jail.

• The president said he has kept his promise to “remove every lead pipe in America.” But that’s a “goal,” as the administration has said, that he has started to address. It’s not a “promise kept,” as Biden described it.

• Biden rightly said he capped the cost of insulin and out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. But he inaccurately added that the provisions will save Medicare $160 billion. Instead, they will increase costs.

As we typically see in campaign speeches, the president repeated claims we’ve written about before — on billionaires’ tax rates, former President Donald Trump’s comments on “bleach” and COVID-19, and Biden’s unsupported claim that Trump “is determined to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

Biden spoke in Philadelphia on May 29. Pennsylvania, a swing state, was won by Biden in 2020 and by Trump in 2016.

The White-Black Wealth Gap

Biden said he reduced the gap in wealth between white and Black Americans.

“The racial wealth gap is the lowest it’s been in 20 years because of our efforts,” Biden said, repeating a claim that he has made before. “A promise made and a promise kept.”

Biden was accurately referring to the ratio of median Black wealth compared with median white wealth, based on data in a research paper published in October 2023 by Federal Reserve Board staffers. The report shows that in 2022, Black families had $15.75 in wealth for every $100 in wealth for white families — the smallest gap since 2001, when the ratio was roughly the same. (The paper defines wealth as assets minus liabilities.)

However, by an alternative measure, in absolute or raw dollars, Black families had a median wealth of $44,890, and for white families the median was $285,010. The difference of $240,120 was the largest gap in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1989, which is as far back as the report’s data go. The wealth gap in absolute dollars widened in 2022 despite Black wealth growing at a faster rate than white wealth, the report said.

So, one measure supports Biden’s claim and the other does not.

In an email, Moritz Kuhn, a professor of economics at the University of Mannheim in Germany, told us that “in general, there is no right or wrong measure of inequality or the racial wealth gap.” Although, economists tend to prefer using the relative, or ratio, measurement when making comparisons over time, he said.

As for why Black wealth increased in 2022, the authors of the report said that the biggest factor was growth in net housing wealth, or “the market value of a family’s home minus any outstanding loans secured by the home.” Business equity was the second largest factor, followed by a rise in “other wealth” and stocks. The paper noted that more Black families owned homes, stocks and businesses in 2022 than in some prior years.

Pardons for Federal Marijuana Offenses

Biden has issued two proclamations pardoning people convicted of federal simple marijuana possession and use charges, as well as charges in Washington, D.C. But he exaggerated the impact of his actions when claiming that he was “keeping my promises that no one should be in jail” for such offenses. The pardons apply only to federal and D.C. offenses committed on or before Dec. 22, 2023 — not offenses after that date — and it’s unclear if anyone has or will be released from prison.

“I’m keeping my promises that no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana,” Biden said. “I pardoned thousands of people incarcerated for the mere possession of marijuana — thousands. A promise made and a promise kept. And for — their records should be expunged as well, I might add.”

Biden’s Oct. 6, 2022, proclamation grants “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon” to people who were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time they committed or were convicted of simple possession of marijuana in violation of either the federal Controlled Substances Act or D.C. Code 48–904.01(d)(1). The Justice Department explains that the pardon pertains to offenses committed on or before the date of the proclamation.

On Dec. 22, 2023, Biden issued a second proclamation to cover offenses committed up to that date, and expanded the eligible offenses beyond simple possession to include attempted possession and use.

The DOJ says that these pardons lift “barriers to housing, employment, and educational opportunities for thousands of people with those prior offenses.” But, as we explained in 2022, when Biden similarly exaggerated the scope of his first proclamation, the pardons don’t do anything for people convicted on state or local charges, and it’s unclear if anyone would be released from jail as a result of the pardons.

In October 2022, a senior administration official told reporters that “there are no individuals currently in federal prison solely for simple possession of marijuana.”

Simple possession of marijuana is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first-time offender. The penalties increase for repeat offenders. A January 2023 report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission said that 70% of federal marijuana possession offenders were sentenced to prison from fiscal year 2017 to 2021, with an average prison time of five months.

The report also said that nearly 60% of all offenders weren’t U.S. citizens. Biden’s pardons apply to citizens and legal permanent residents only.

In the December proclamation, Biden said he encouraged “Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses and applaud those who have since taken action.”

As of May 2, 24 states and Washington, D.C., as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have legalized recreational use of small amounts of marijuana, and more allow for medicinal use, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Biden also exaggerated in saying that he “pardoned thousands of people” jailed for marijuana possession. Thousands of people are eligible for these federal pardons — in October 2022, the administration said more than 6,500 people with prior federal convictions and thousands with D.C. convictions could benefit — but they have to submit an application to get one. So far, 208 certificates of pardon have been issued, according to the DOJ webpage, last updated on June 3.

In his remarks in Philadelphia, Biden said that offenders’ “records should be expunged,” meaning the offense would be removed from the person’s permanent record. That’s something he promised for prior convictions on the campaign trail in 2020. But the pardons issued under his proclamations don’t expunge a conviction. In fact, the Justice Department says a president can’t grant expungement. Instead, it is up to the court, and it “is rarely granted.”

Lead Pipe Removal

The president said he has kept his promise to “remove every lead pipe in America.” But that’s a “goal,” as the administration has said — not what Biden described in Philadelphia as a “promise kept.”

Biden, May 29: Look, I said I’d remove every lead pipe in America so every child can drink clean water without fear of brain damage. We’re doing it. A promise made and a promise kept.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which the Biden administration refers to as the bipartisan infrastructure law, is one of Biden’s signature accomplishments. It includes $15 billion in direct funding for lead pipe replacement. So far, the $9 billion in funding announced to date is “expected to replace up to 1.7 million lead pipes nationwide,” the Environmental Protection Agency said in a May 2 press release.

However, the EPA estimates that there are 9 million lead service lines in the United States, according to the agency’s Updated 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey & Assessment issued last month. As we’ve written before, the EPA estimated the average cost for full lead service line replacement at $4,700 per line. Using that estimate, it would cost more than $42 billion to replace 9 million lead pipes.

State, local and tribal governments can use other federal grant, loan and loan guarantee programs to replace lead service lines, such as community block grants and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which was created under the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, the EPA says on its website. But whether the Biden administration will “remove every lead pipe in America” is not yet a promise kept.

Medicare Savings

During the 2020 campaign, Biden promised to reduce prescription drug costs, including proposing to cap out-of-pocket drug expenses for Medicare beneficiaries, allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and require Medicare to “target excessively priced prescription drugs that face little or no competition.”

In his Philadelphia speech, Biden said that he kept his promise to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare.

“Seniors with diabetes are now paying $35 [a month] for insulin instead of $400,” Biden said. “We capped total out-of-pocket costs for drugs for seniors beginning next year at $2,000 a year total, including cancer drugs that cost $10-, $12-, $14,000 a year. You pay no more than $2,000 a year. A promise made and a promise kept.”

But he went too far when he repeated his claim that reducing insulin costs and out-of-pocket expenses will save Medicare $160 billion.

“And, by the way,” Biden added, “it not only saves people money, it saves the taxpayers — guess what? — $160 billion cut in the def- — because Medicare doesn’t have to pay those exorbitant prices.”

It’s actually the opposite. Those two provisions, which are part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, will increase Medicare spending.

As we have written before, the insulin cap will cost $5.1 billion over 10 years, while the limit on out-of-pocket expenses for seniors with Medicare Part D prescription coverage will increase spending by $30 billion over the 2022-2031 period, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Overall, the Medicare provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act are expected to reduce the deficit by $237 billion over 10 years, according to CBO. That includes prescription drug negotiation provisions that would save Medicare $98.5 billion over 10 years. There’s also a projected $63.2 billion in savings by requiring rebates from drug companies if their prices increase faster than inflation. Those two provisions total about $160 billion — which is the figure used by Biden.

But most of the savings haven’t happened yet.

---

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, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Claim:

The caps of ballpoint pens are perforated to prevent choking accidents.

Rating:

For years, posts on Reddit, X and other platforms have claimed that the reason the tops of ballpoint pen caps are perforated is to save lives:

Other posts on Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) claimed the same thing, in English and other languages. As we’ll see, the claim is true, though Bic didn’t start to vent its pens until 1990.

Saving Lives

The idea of perforating the caps of pens appears to have started in the United Kingdom, where a new safety standard was adopted in 1990 (BS 7272). Between 1970 and 1984, nine children in the United Kingdom died as a result of choking on pen caps. “No such deaths have occurred since the U.K. adopted the international safety standard,” a 2004 report said.

In an email, Bic spokeswoman Astrid Canevet said the company began to perforate the caps of its emblematic product, the Bic Cristal, that same year. “BIC, always concerned with the safety of its products and its consumers, decided to apply this British norm everywhere in the world,” she said.

It now exists as such in compliance with International Organization for Standardization norm 11540 — first implemented in 1993, then revised in 2014 and more recently in 2021 — relative to “requirements to reduce the risk of asphyxiation from caps for writing and marking instruments. It relates to such instruments which in normal or foreseeable circumstances are likely to be used by children up to the age of 14 years.” This norm was established in response to the several incidents of children choking on unperforated pen caps.

As the company stated on its website’s FAQ:

Our vented caps comply with international safety standards ISO11540. These standards attempt to minimize the risk to children from accidental inhalation of pen caps. Traditionally the pen cap served only to protect the pen point. These vented caps allow more air to circulate around the pen point when the pen is capped. This further adds to the quality and overall performance of the pen.

Canevet gave more details about what pen makers might do to various models of ballpoint pens in response to this norm:

The cap might have a single hole, or several holes placed at the top of the cap (which is often the case for markers), or have a large cap (more than 1.6 millimeters in diameter), which is considered too large to be swallowed.

Bic’s History

The Bic Cristal pen was created in France in 1950, after manufacturer and Bic founder Baron Marcel Bich acquired the rights to a patent created by László Bíró. The Bic Cristal was still being produced in France as of this writing, following a proprietary process. The writing ball is 1 millimeter in diameter, almost as resistant as a diamond and made of tungsten carbide. The ink must have the viscosity of honey. The hole on the clear side of the pen allows for air to pass to balance the air pressure so the ink can come out. A classic Bic Cristal can write up to 3 kilometers. In 2001, the iconic pen, still the world’s most sold, entered the Museum of Modern Art.

The pen is, of course, made mostly of plastic. In response to environmental concerns — and to mark the pen’s 70th anniversary — the company introduced in 2020 a rechargeable version of it, with a body made of metal and a cap made of recycled plastic.

Now, most ballpoint pen manufacturers comply with ISO11540.

Sources