In January 2026, King Charles III “reasserted British rule” over the U.S., saying the U.K. would follow the U.S. in “advocating a muscular return to colonialism.”
Rating:
In January 2026, a claim that Britain’s King Charles III reasserted British rule over “the colonies formerly known as the United States of America” spread online. According to one popular post (archived), the king said:
In recent days, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller have been advocating a muscular return to colonialism. I couldn’t agree more with those chaps. We lost the colonies because our King went insane. But now the shoe’s on the other bloody foot, isn’t it?
The alleged quote is a historical reference to Britain’s former colonial rule of the American colonies, which ended when the U.S. officially became an independent nation in 1783.
The claim appeared following the United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, leading President Donald Trump to declare oversight over Venezuela. The Trump administration also resurfaced a longstanding goal for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, the Arctic Danish territory rich in minerals as well as oil and gas reserves, in early January 2026.
Snopes readers emailed us to ask about the claim involving Charles. We found no evidence he made any public statements about reasserting British rule over the U.S.
Rather, the rumor originated with The Borowitz Report — a site that describes its output as satirical in nature. Its author, Andy Borowitz, wrote on its About page: “I’ve been writing satirical news since I was eighteen. This represents either commitment to a genre or arrested development.”
The New Yorker featured The Borowitz Report as a column for 25 years. Borowitz announced in 2023 that the magazine dropped his column for financial reasons. He then returned to publishing his satirical stories on his own website and social media pages.
If a major world leader had actually made such an announcement, reputable news media outlets would have reported it. A Google search of the quote, “In recent days, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller have been advocating a muscular return to colonialism. I couldn’t agree more with those chaps,” returned results related only to the satirical story in question.
A video from November 2025 that circulated online in early January 2026 correctly stated that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid asks white applicants to further specify what ethnic background they have.
Rating:
Context
FAFSA began including such subcategories for people from numerous ethnic backgrounds from 2024 onwards. While some social media users believed the change could usher in discrimination against different “types” of white people, higher-education policy researchers have long supported the collection of more detailed race and ethnicity data to better understand what students from different backgrounds need. Respondents can also choose the option “prefer not to answer.”
In late 2025, a rumor began circulating online that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, had started including additional subcategories for white applicants that asked for further details on their background, such as whether they were German, Irish or Italian, for example.
Nearly all American college students use the FAFSA to determine their eligibility for federal financial aid.
Social media users on X and Instagram shared a widely-seen TikTok video of a woman questioning why the form asked “what type of white” she was. The TikTok account posted the footage on Nov. 11, 2025, during which she said:
Look at this. Why the hell is the FAFSA asking what type of white I am? I don’t think I have ever been asked what “type” of white person I am ever before. I mean, this isn’t a bad thing. I’m just like, when did this start happening? Because, you know what I mean, usually you just hit “white” and then you move on with your day. They don’t have any other questions, usually. I don’t know who “they” is. I’m thinking all the other forms I’ve ever filled out. Usually you just hit “white” and move on. Girl, my dad’s adopted. I don’t even know.
One person replying to the clip expressed concern that the U.S. could be returning to the days when Irish and Italian people faced significantdiscrimination, while another suggested the alleged change occurred under U.S. President Donald Trump.
The FAFSA has, in fact, included subcategories for white people and other backgrounds in its race and ethnicity section since the 2024-25 school year (see Page 9 of the form). Higher-education policy experts celebrated this addition as a tool for gathering information to provide targeted support to students of all backgrounds. As such, we have rated this claim as true, but there’s additional crucial context.
Before the 2024-25 school year, FAFSA did not collect race and ethnicity data. The first Trump administration’s bipartisan FAFSA Simplification Act required the form to include race and ethnicity questions. A 2022 update to the act mandated that the changes would become effective in the 2024-25 school year. Including subcategories aligns with an Office of Management and Budget policy under former President Joe Biden’s administration, which updated race and ethnicity data collection standards for all federal forms, not just the FAFSA.
New data collection rules apply to all agencies
The 2024-25 and the 2025-26 FAFSA forms were both available online. The race and ethnicity section, which included subcategories under “White,” was on Page 9 of both documents. The 2023-24 FAFSA form did not include any race and ethnicity questions.
It is worth noting respondents also had the option to choose “prefer not to answer” rather than provide race and ethnicity information.
Here’s how the FAFSA Simplification Act, which passed as part of a larger budget bill on Dec. 27, 2020, directed the Department of Education to determine the race and ethnicity categories (see Page 1988):
(VIII) Race or ethnicity, using categories developed in consultation with the Bureau of the Census and the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences that, to the greatest extent practicable, separately capture the racial groups specified in the American Community Survey of the Bureau of the Census.
The act also banned discriminating against “any borrower or applicant in obtaining a loan” based on their race or ethnicity, among other characteristics (see Page 1978).
The American Community Survey of the Bureau of the Census and the FAFSA, like all other federal forms, must follow the OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, which sets federal standards for collecting race and ethnicity data. The OMB updated those standards, effective March 28, 2024, to require, with certain exceptions, “the collection of detailed data on race and ethnicity beyond the minimum categories.”
In other words, the OMB largely required federal forms to include subsections for ethnicity data, such as those found on the FAFSA.
“These revisions to SPD 15 are intended to result in more accurate and useful race and ethnicity data across the Federal government,” the announcement read.
The OMB also provided an example of what those categories and subcategories might look like in the revised rule. The below image shows a side-by-side comparison between the agency’s example and the 2024-25 FAFSA form.
(Federal Register / FAFSA / Snopes Illustration)
Push to disaggregate data did not start with FAFSA
It is worth noting that the 2024-25 and 2025-26 FAFSA forms did not appear to fully align with the Biden-era OMB policy. For example, those forms did not include “North African and Middle Eastern” as a separate category. Based on Page 1 of FAFSA’s “Summary of Enhancements” document, the Department of Education was planning to add that category to its 2026-27 form, as required by the updated OMB rules. (Federal agencies must be in full compliance with the OMB rules by March 28, 2029).
The Census Bureau noted that the OMB’s updated standards took “years of scientific research, extensive public engagement, and Federal expert review and deliberation.” This pointed to a larger conversation within data analysis spaces about providing more detailed race and ethnicity information to better serve diverse populations, such as Asian Americans, whose ethnic subgroups have vast disparities in issues, including income, that experts say can be hidden by the broad “Asian American” label.
In other words, the conversation about subcategories was happening long before the OMB’s rules took effect and before the Trump administration passed the FAFSA Simplification Act. That might explain why work on the 2024-25 FAFSA form started in 2023, before the OMB rules came into effect, but those in charge of putting together the FAFSA’s new race and ethnicity section still included subsections with additional ethnicity data questions.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy and 10 other organizations dedicated to education-related research said: “The inclusion of these race and ethnicity questions on the FAFSA is invaluable for research on how different groups of students access, cover costs for, and receive value from postsecondary education.”
In sum …
FAFSA has asked applicants “what type of white” — or other background — they are since 2024. Support for these sorts of subcategories occurred under both the first Trump administration and under Biden.
Additionally, social media users’ concerns about the data being used to discriminate against subgroups of white people were not backed up with evidence. In fact, many experts approved of detailed data collection on race and ethnicity because it provides more information on what different communities may need to succeed.
Sources
“2023-2024 Free Application for Federal Student Aid.” Studentaid.gov, studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-24-fafsa.pdf.
Collins, Benjamin. “The FAFSA Simplification Act.” Congress.gov, 4 Aug. 2022, www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46909#_Toc111464235:~:text=household%20size.%2237-. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.
“FAFSA® Specifications Guide Volume 1 – Summary of Changes.” Fsapartners.ed.gov, June 2024, fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/202425FAFSASpecVol1SummaryofChanges.pdf.
“Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Form, July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025.” Studentaid.gov, studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/2024-25-fafsa.pdf.
“Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026.” Studentaid.gov, studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/2025-26-fafsa.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.
Goh, Jin X., et al. “Unpacking Broad Racial Labels: The Disaggregation of Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, SAGE Publishing, Dec. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251404384. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.
“History of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.” Spd15revision.gov, spd15revision.gov/content/spd15revision/en/history.html.
Kochhar, Rakesh, and Anthony Cilluffo. “Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly among Asians.” Pew Research Center, 12 July 2018, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/.
Liang, Peter S., et al. “Disaggregating Racial and Ethnic Data: A Step toward Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Gastroenterology, vol. 164, no. 3, Mar. 2023, pp. 320–24, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2023.01.008.
“PostsecData’s Comment on Proposed 2024-25 FAFSA.” IHEP, 11 June 2024, www.ihep.org/press/postsecdatas-comment-on-proposed-2024-25-fafsa/. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.
“Revisions to OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federalregister.gov, 29 Mar. 2024, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to-ombs-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and.
US Census Bureau. “Updates to Race/Ethnicity Standards for Our Nation.” Census.gov, 20 Dec. 2024, www.census.gov/about/our-research/race-ethnicity/standards-updates.html.
Warick, Carrie. “Bipartisan Support for FAFSA Simplification Eases Path to Accessing Financial Aid.” Ncan.org, 21 Dec. 2020, www.ncan.org/news/543813/Bipartisan-Support-for-FAFSA-Simplification-Eases-Path-to-Accessing-Financial-Aid.htm. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.
Spotify Drops ICE Recruitment Ads Amid Artist Protests
Spotify has confirmed it no longer runs U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recruitment ads, following a wave of backlash from artists and advocacy groups. The ads were part of a broader federal campaign tied to a $30 billion Trump administration initiative aimed at hiring 10,000 deportation officers by 2025. Spotify aired the ads on its free tier, offering bonuses up to $50,000. The campaign reportedly spent $3 million on Google and YouTube alone, within a $100 million media strategy. Groups including Indivisible Project and 50501 Movement led boycotts, particularly during Spotify Wrapped season. (Read More) (PennLive Rating)
VP Vance Slams Media Coverage of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the media over its portrayal of a fatal ICE officer-involved shooting in Minnesota, calling it “an absolute disgrace.” At a White House press briefing, Vance objected to headlines like CNN’s “Outrage after ICE officer kills US citizen in Minneapolis,” accusing outlets of omitting context, namely that the officer had previously been injured in a similar encounter. The incident has sparked partisan conflict, with the Department of Homeland Security labeling the shooting as “self-defense,” while Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and other Democrats called that characterization “propaganda.” Vance urged journalists to “tell the truth” and decried left-wing activists for allegedly escalating tensions. (Read More) (The Hill Rating)
X Sees 60% Revenue Drop in UK Over Content Safety Concerns
Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has experienced a dramatic 60% decline in UK revenue over the past year, driven by ongoing concerns about harmful content on the platform. The decline follows public outcry over violent and sexually explicit imagery generated through X’s AI tool Grok, prompting restrictions on the feature for most users. The platform has faced increasing advertiser resistance globally amid moderation controversies. (Read More) (MediaPost Rating)
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 Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate, we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)
Claim Codes: Red= Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other
Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC
BLATANT LIE
Claim via Social Media: A group of radical libertarian NRA members in Oregon are reportedly open-carrying AR-15s and standing in front of ICE vehicles with smiles on their faces and daring the agents to move an inch toward them.
Claim via Social Media:As of Jan. 7, 2026, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer’s fatal shooting of Minneapolis woman Renee Nicole Good was the only homicide recorded in the city during 2026.
Snopes rating: True (According to the city’s crime dashboard, there were no recorded homicides in Minneapolis from Jan. 1 to 7, 2026, the day an ICE officer killed Renee Nicole Good.)
Claim by Donald Trump (R): “The woman driving the car 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. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive,”
DW rating: False (Trump’s claim that Renee Nicole Good ran over an ICE officer is false. The clip he shared, originally posted by KSTP-TV 5 Eyewitness News on Instagram, may briefly appear to show the SUV running over the officer. However, by around the 8-second mark, the officer is clearly standing and watching the vehicle drive away. Viewed at normal speed and from another angle, it is evident the officer jumps back and is not run over.)
Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact-checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump spent New Year’s Day at an orphanage in Pennsylvania in 2026.
Rating:
In early January 2026, social media users shared a feel-good story that claimed U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump spent New Year’s Day volunteering at “a small orphanage in Pennsylvania.” According to the posts, the Trumps served 300 meals to the center’s children, “moving from table to table, greeting children by name.”
🔥🎆 BREAKING NEWS: On the first morning of the New Year, while most of the country was still easing into celebration, Donald Trump and Melania Trump quietly arrived at a small orphanage in Pennsylvania.
No cameras followed them.
No announcements were made.
The orphanage was home to hundreds of children who had grown up without parents but never stopped chasing their dreams. That morning, Trump and Melania didn’t come to speak — they came to serve. Together, they helped prepare and hand out 300 New Year’s meals, moving from table to table, greeting children by name, listening more than talking.
After the meals were finished, the couple paused. They exchanged a brief look and shared a few quiet words with the children — nothing rehearsed, nothing recorded. Witnesses later said the message was so unexpected and heartfelt that the room fell completely still.
Caregivers stood frozen.
Children listened in silence.
Some wiped away tears they didn’t expect.
There was no public announcement afterward. Only later did staff realize the couple had quietly arranged ongoing support for the orphanage — education, counseling, and future holiday meals — without attaching their names.
This was not a photo op.
This was not a show.
It was a New Year moment that reminded everyone present that sometimes, the most powerful acts of kindness happen when no one is watching.
(Facebook Page Today News)
That post, which has been removed, directed readers to a Jan. 3, 2026, article (archived) titled, “ONE UNEXPECTED SENTENCE FROM TRUMP AND MELANIA THAT CHANGED A NEW YEAR’S MORNING FOREVER!001” It started:
On the first morning of the New Year, while fireworks debris still lingered on sidewalks and much of the country was easing into celebration, something quietly extraordinary unfolded far from television studios and press briefings.
There were no motorcades.
No flashing lights.
No advance notice.
Donald Trump and Melania Trump arrived without ceremony at a small orphanage in Pennsylvania — a place rarely mentioned in headlines, but deeply familiar with resilience.
The story about the Trumps spreadwithadditionalFacebook posts that remained viewable as of this writing. Many commenters appeared to take the story at face value.
However, the story was fictional and appeared to be the product of artificial-intelligence tools. On New Year’s Day, Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach Florida, according to the White House press pool. Therefore, we have rated the claim false.
Signs of misinformation
The posts had several signs of being make-believe. First, no version of the rumor identified a name for the alleged orphanage, nor a city or county in Pennsylvania where it is supposedly located.
Moreover, according to search results, no credible local or national news organizations documented the alleged event, which would have been newsworthy if it had really happened. Even if the Trumps did not make an announcement or pose for photos, as the Facebook posts claim, there would be at least some record of the visit.
While the exact source of the fictional story is unknown, AI-detection tools suggested the text was not written by a human. According to ZeroGPT, there was a 95.5% chance an AI tool wrote the passage. (Research shows AI-detection software is imperfect. Readers should consider the tools’ results with skepticism.)
(www.zerogpt.com)
The article’s tone, structure, emotional language and lack of verifiable details were also an indication of AI software.
Also, the text circulated alongside what appeared to be AI-generated images of the Trumps at the alleged orphanage.
According to press pool reports archived by The American Presidency Project, on Jan. 1, 2026, Trump’s motorcade traveled to the Trump International Golf Club in the morning and returned to Mar-a-Lago in the afternoon. Newsstories and photos by journalists documented both Donald and Melania Trump at Mar-a-Lago for New Year’s Eve celebrations, as well.
In January 2026, former President George W. Bush said he was celebrating “no longer having started the dumbest war in U.S. history.”
Rating:
In January 2026, a claim that former President George W. Bush said he was celebrating “no longer having started the dumbest war in U.S. history” made the rounds online. The caption of one highly circulated post (archived) read:
CRAWFORD, TEXAS—Stating, “I never dreamed this day would come,” former President George W. Bush confirmed on Tuesday that he is celebrating no longer having started the dumbest war in U.S. history.
“When you make a boneheaded mistake as epic as I did, you pretty much assume that no one will ever do something stupider,” Bush said. “I gotta say, I’m pinching myself.”
The former president admitted, however, that “if anyone was going to out-dumb me, it was gonna be this guy.”
“Look, I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed,” he said. “But even I know not to stare at an eclipse.”
The claim that Bush said he was celebrating not having started the “dumbest war in U.S. history” emerged as the administration of President Donald Trump launched threats on Venezuela’s sovereignty by capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and declaring oversight over Venezuela. Both Iraq and Venezuela are nations rich in crude oil.
After dozens of Snopes readers searched our website to verify the claim, we confirmed there is no evidence Bush made any statement about “celebrating no longer having started the dumbest war in U.S. history.”
Rather, the rumor originated with The Borowitz Report — a site that describes its output as satirical in nature. Its author, Andy Borowitz, wrote on its About page: “I’ve been writing satirical news since I was eighteen. This represents either commitment to a genre or arrested development.”
The New Yorker featured The Borowitz Report as a column for 25 years. Borowitz announced in 2023 that the magazine dropped his column for financial reasons. He then returned to publishing his satirical stories on his own website and social media pages.
If a former U.S. president had actually made such an announcement, reputable news media outlets would have reported it. The Borowitz post included no information regarding when and where Bush allegedly made the statement. A Google search of the quote, “When you make a boneheaded mistake as epic as I did, you pretty much assume that no one will ever do something stupider,” also returned results related only to the satirical story in question.
For background, here is why we alert readers to rumors created by sources that call their output humorous or satirical.
Sources
Borowitz, Andy. About – The Borowitz Report. https://www.borowitzreport.com/about. Accessed 8 Jan. 2026.
Borowitz, Andy. The Borowitz Report | Andy Borowitz | Substack. https://www.borowitzreport.com/. Accessed 8 Jan. 2026.
Google Search. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22When+you+make+a+boneheaded+mistake+as+epic+as+I+did%2C+you+pretty+much+assume+that+no+one+will+ever+do+something+stupider%22&oq=%22When+you+make+a+boneheaded+mistake+as+epic+as+I+did%2C+you+pretty+much+assume+that+no+one+will+ever+do+something+stupider%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDQxMDhqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sei=wFVhaYLMB5aCm9cP9d2EmQY. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Sanger, David. ‘Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years’. The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html.
Sherlick, Zachary Laub, Kevin Lizarazo,Jeremy. Timeline: The Iraq War. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
The Costs and Consequences of President Bush’s War In Iraq. https://www.dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-211. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
In January 2026, Zohran Mamdani took office as New York City’s mayor, promising to make the city more affordable for residents. One of his earliest actions was signing executive orders aimed at cracking down on companies imposing “junk fees” and trapping consumers in subscriptions.
Critics claimed Mamdani also promised to make FIFA World Cup tickets “available to all.” The FIFA World Cup soccer tournament will be taking place in the U.S., Canada and Mexico in summer 2026.
Many onlinepokedfun at Mamdani’s purported quote, saying the New York mayor had no power to influence FIFA ticket prices. Community Notes on X pointed out that World Cup games were going to be held in New Jersey and not New York.
(X user @MamdaniWatch)
While Mamdani did not specifically state he was making World Cup tickets “available to all,” he did call on FIFA to make ticket prices more affordable and opposed the organization’s “dynamic pricing” policy. Mamdani also said he wanted to make the World Cup and other experiences be “available to each and every New Yorker.”
Dynamic pricing is a strategy in which a company adjusts its product prices based on market demand, supply changes, and other external and internal factors, leading to fluctuating prices, according to Britannica.
We reached out to the mayor’s office to determine how exactly he would make FIFA tickets more affordable for New Yorkers and will update this story if we receive a response.
Mamdani made the comments about FIFA’s pricing policies at a news conference on Jan. 5, 2026, where he discussed his executive orders. A journalist asked him how the mayor’s team would tackle dynamic pricing. Mamdani replied (emphasis ours):
I am thankful that we have an incoming speaker who, as she said, had introduced legislation not even less than a year ago that spoke to dynamic pricing specifically within the question of groceries. And I continue to voice my opposition to the use of dynamic pricing here for the soon-to-come World Cup and the necessity of it being a more affordable experience for all. And I look forward to the conversations, ones that have already begun, both internally and externally, in making that case.
Because what we are seeing — you know, I had a New Yorker the other day, come up to me and ask me if there was any way I could help him get World Cup tickets, because he was saying that the cost that he saw for a game was $600. This is increasingly out of reach. We have made what used to be a working-class game into a luxury experience.
And there are too many for whom it doesn’t matter where the World Cup is being played in the world, they know where they’re going to watch it. It’s TV. And we want to ensure that there are more experiences available to each and every New Yorker.
Mamdani made the comments at the 28:40 mark of the video below:
Mamdani was critical of World Cup ticket prices throughout his 2025 mayoral campaign. In September 2025, he released a video along with a petition calling on FIFA to “end dynamic pricing, cap resale costs, and set aside 15% of tickets for local residents at a discount.”
In December 2025, Mamdani said in an interview with CBS News that he would appoint a “World Cup czar” who would push FIFA to lower ticket prices.
“The cheapest ticket to the World Cup Final, which will be here in New York City and New Jersey, according to the Croatian Federation, is $4,000. That’s five times more expensive than it was to go to the final in Qatar,” he said.
World Cup games are going to be held in a New Jersey stadium, but New York City is expected to play a big role in hosting an influx of tourists and related events. According to FIFA’s website, the city will host official events and even a “fan village.”
It is unclear how Mamdani would apply his executive orders to FIFA World Cup tickets, given that the tickets will be sold across the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
FIFA officials said ticket prices would start at $60 for group-stage matches but could increase to more than $6,000, adding that costs would fluctuate because of dynamic pricing. The organization also implemented a cap on resale prices for tickets in Mexico — something Mamdani has called for in the U.S. — due to the country’s strict laws. In December 2025, FIFA said it would make some $60 tickets available for every game in North America for national federations to distribute among loyal fans. However, these tickets will likely be in the hundreds rather than the thousands, according to ESPN.
While Mamdani did not exactly say that he would be making World Cup tickets “available to all,” he did say he wanted all New Yorkers to experience the World Cup and called on FIFA to make tickets affordable. While he has issued executive orders targeting business pricing practices in New York City, it wasn’t immediately clear how they would apply to the World Cup.
“Fan Festival.” FIFA World Cup 2026™ NYNJ, 24 Oct. 2025, https://nynjfwc26.com/fan-festival/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“FIFA Slashes Some WC Ticket Prices after Backlash.” ESPN.Com, 16 Dec. 2025, https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/47325927/fifa-2026-world-cup-ticket-prices-supporter-tier. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Ibrahim, Nur. “Mamdani Isn’t Responsible for Raising NYC Subway and Bus Fares to $3.” Snopes, 7 Jan. 2026, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/mamdani-nyc-subway-bus-fares/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Keh, Andrew. “Soon He’ll Be Mayor Mamdani. To His Soccer Teammates, He Was Just Z.” The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/nyregion/mamdani-soccer-talking-headers-brooklyn.html. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Mamdani Makes Bizarre Promise about World Cup Tickets — and Gets Humiliated by Community Note | Blaze Media. https://www.theblaze.com/news/mamdani-world-cup-tix-mockery. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“Mayor Mamdani Signs Executive Orders to Crack Down on Junk Fees, Subscription Tricks and Traps and Save New Yorkers Money.” The Official Website of the City of New York, 5 Jan. 2026, https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-signs-executive-orders-to-crack-down-on-junk-fees-. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Prussin, Mark . NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani Vows to Appoint “World Cup Czar” over FIFA Ticket Prices – CBS New York. 14 Dec. 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/zohran-mamdani-fifa-ticket-prices-world-cup-czar/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“Transcript: Mayor Mamdani Signs Executive Orders to Crack Down on Junk Fees, Subscription Tricks and Traps and Save New Yorkers Money.” The Official Website of the City of New York, 5 Jan. 2026, https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/transcript–mayor-mamdani-signs-executive-orders-to-crack-down-o. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“What Is Dynamic Pricing?” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/money/what-is-dynamic-pricing. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“World Cup Tickets Initially to Cost $60-$6,730 but Could Fluctuate with Dynamic Pricing.” AP News, 3 Sept. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/fifa-world-cup-tickets-2026-bcf8864cafa11ee30ba659a14d098968. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
“Zohran Mamdani Has a New Goal as He Runs for NYC Mayor: Cheaper World Cup Tickets.” AP News, 10 Sept. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/zohran-mamdani-world-cup-ticket-prices-nyc-cc278cfd2f4a0bff477ceff5c209169b. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Welcome to our weekly media literacy quiz. This quiz will test your knowledge of the past week’s events with a focus on facts, misinformation, bias, and general media literacy. Please share and compare your results.
Media Literacy = the ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility.
Media Literacy Quiz for Week of Jan 10
Test your knowledge with 7 questions about current events, media bias, fact checks, and misinformation.
Rules: No Googling! Use reasoning and logic if you don't know.
Your answer:
Correct answer:
You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
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 Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate, we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)
Claim Codes: Red= Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other
Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC
BLATANT LIE
Claim via Social Media: The FBI and DEA rescued 450 children in a raid of a Somali couple’s California “luxury island.”
Snopes rating: False (Fake propaganda to enrage racists.)
Claim by Pam Bondi (R): The Justice Department has been investigating fraud in Minnesota “for months. So far, we have charged 98 individuals.”
PolitiFact rating: Misleading (While the total number of charged defendants is accurate when combining multiple related cases, the investigation did not begin “for months.” Federal authorities launched the core Feeding Our Future investigation in 2021, and roughly 75% of the charges were filed before President Trump took office.)
Claim via Social Media: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis defended Renee Good, the woman shot and killed by an ICE agent after refused to get out of her car and drove away from ICE agents who ordered her out of her car.
Lead Stories rating: False (Old Video: DeSantis was describing a Florida law that protects the right of drivers to escape when protesters or mobs try to block streets, even if that means driving through people trying to stop traffic. He said this in response to the LA Protests over the summer 2025.)
Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact-checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
An image authentically shows Renee Nicole Good’s car aimed toward the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot her on Jan. 7, 2026.
Rating:
After a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, 37, in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, 2026, social media users shared an image appearing to show Good’s car aimed toward and about to hit the officer.
The image spread on social media platforms such as Redditand X. “Any questions?” one Facebook user posted, apparently assuming the image was authentic.
However, the image was fake. Using reverse image search tools, we traced it to a post from X user @ScummyMummy511, who acknowledged using artificial intelligence to create it. The AI-generated depiction also did not match the scene shown in multiple credible videos and photos of the shooting, further proving it wasn’t authentic.
Multiplecredibleanalyses of videos from the shooting contradicted claims that Good was attempting to run over the officer and found that the wheels of her vehicle were turned away from him right before the shooting. (After a Minnesota news outlet released the agent’s own cellphone video on Jan. 9, Vice President JD Vance was among officials who said the footage showed he had fired has gun in self-defense.)
Tracking down origin of image
In many versions of the image circulating online, text on the left-hand side says “mmy511.” A reverse image search via Google Images returned multiple results for the full picture, which included the watermark “@ScummyMummy511.”
That led us to @ScummyMummy511’s X post, which included the image alongside a defense of the officer who shot Good. In a reply to the original post, @ScummyMummy511 wrote:
Omg how’d you get that picture of the shooting? How did you know to fly a drone at this moment over this situation? I didn’t, this is a AI generated image of the scene just so r*****s can see why the Agent fired his weapon.
How to tell image is AI-generated
Even without the creator’s acknowledgment, the image showed clear signs of being created with artificial intelligence.
For example, videos of the shooting posted by credible journalists and news outlets showed that the passenger side door was not open, like it is in the fake image. One of the officers in the picture also appears to have a distorted leg.
The left image shows issues with the AI image, such as the open passenger door — which was not reflected in the right image, a screenshot taken from a credible video of the shooting. (X user @ScummyMummy511/Max Nesterak/Snopes Illustration )
Finally, the shooting happened near the intersection of 34th Street East and Portland Avenue in Minneapolis. According to Google Street View — and the reputable videos of the shooting — that intersection has a one-way street with white dotted lines and a neighborhood street with no lines, as opposed to the double yellow lines indicating a two-way street in the AI-generated image.
Snopes previously debunked another AI-generated image claiming to show the full face of the officer who killed Good. Multiple credible news outlets have identified that agent as Jonathan Ross, though Snopes has not independently verified that.
Sources
@MaxNesterak. “A Witness Shared This Video with Me Showing an ICE Officer Shooting a Driver in an SUV in South Minneapolis. DHS Says the Woman Is Dead.” X (Formerly Twitter), 7 Jan. 2026, x.com/maxnesterak/status/2008961959731859757?s=20. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
@ScummyMummy511. “Minnesota Statutes § 609.066 If a Driver Accelerates toward an Officer Standing in Front of the Vehicle, This Creates an Immediate, Life-Threatening Danger. The Officer Doesn’t Need to Wait until Impact; They Can Act Based on the Apparent Intent and Proximity. #Minnesota #IceAgent.” X.com, 7 Jan. 2026, x.com/ScummyMummy511/status/2009028672158928964.
—. “Omg How’d You Get That Picture of the Shooting? How Did You Know to Fly a Drone at This Moment over This Situation? I Didn’t, This Is a AI Generated Image of the Scene Just so Retards Can See Why the Agent Fired His Weapon.” X (Formerly Twitter), 7 Jan. 2026, x.com/ScummyMummy511/status/2009029209935802481. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
City of Minneapolis. “Minneapolis Responds to Fatal Shooting of Woman by Federal Agent.” Minneapolismn.gov, 7 Jan. 2026, www.minneapolismn.gov/news/2026/january/fatal-shooting-response/.
Google Maps. “Google Maps.” Google Maps, www.google.com/maps/@44.9413792. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
Lum, Devon, et al. “Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis.” Nytimes.com, The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2026, www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html.
Winter, Emery. “ICE Agent Who Shot Renee Good Isn’t Named Steve Grove.” Snopes, Snopes.com, 9 Jan. 2026, www.snopes.com/fact-check/renee-good-ice-agent-name/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.
The Trump administration and some Democrats have drawn divergent conclusions from bystander video of the fatal shooting of a woman in Minnesota by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. How can one side say the agent was “recklessly using power” and the other determine he “fired defensive shots”? Experts told us it’s common for people to view the same video differently, and that the early evidence isn’t enough to reach definitive conclusions.
A bullet hole is seen in the windshield of Good’s vehicle after the fatal shooting by an ICE agent on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis. Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images.
Shortly after the Jan. 7 incident, in which 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was killed by the agent in Minneapolis, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social a video clip of the shooting, captured from a distance, and said that the woman “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” Additional bystander video, captured closer to the shooting, showed the agent wasn’t run over but left unclear whether the vehicle struck him. Republicans and Democrats have still disagreed on what the early video evidence depicted.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Jan. 7 press conference, “This appears as an attempt to kill or to cause bodily harm to agents, an act of domestic terrorism,” determining that the ICE officer “fired defensive shots” because he was “fearing for his life.” The next day, Vice President JD Vance echoed that assessment, saying, “She was trying to ram this guy with his — with her car.”
Democratic leaders in Minnesota have disputed that. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said on Jan. 7, “So they are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video … myself, I want to tell everybody directly. That is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.” In a press conference that day, Gov. Tim Walz referred to “a very difficult video to watch,” saying it was “beyond me” that Noem “has already determined who this person [Good] was, what their motive was.” He criticized the large deployment of federal agents in Minneapolis and said that Good was killed “for no reason whatsoever.”
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani told CNN on Jan. 9 that Good had been “murdered.” He said, “That was the conclusion I came to just in watching that video. And I think that many Americans came to that same conclusion.”
“It is not only very common for different people to watch the same video and come to different conclusions, it is almost inevitable,” Seth W. Stoughton, a law professor and faculty director of the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety Program at the University of South Carolina, told us in an email. “First, people can disagree about the underlying facts of what happened. For example, viewers may disagree about whether the agent was standing in front of a car or next to the car at a specific time. Second, even when people agree about the facts, they can disagree about the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. For example, even if everyone agrees that the agent was next to the car, they might disagree about whether he was in danger of being struck by the car or whether the use of deadly force was appropriate.”
Ed Obayashi, an expert on use-of-force cases, and deputy sheriff and policy adviser for the Modoc County Sheriff’s Office in California, told us that “it is basic fundamental human nature” for people to take sides when viewing these videos. “It is too premature” to make conclusions, he said in a phone interview. The investigation “is at its baby stages. It’s going to take months and months, if not a year or more, to come to a conclusion.”
John R. Black, a former law enforcement officer who has been an expert witness in police practices cases and specializes in analyzing decision-making, told us, “All the video does is demonstrate the need for questions,” adding that the video “by itself, can never be conclusionary.”
Yet, viewers jump to conclusions. “While video is objective evidence, interpretation is always subjective,” he said in a phone interview. The viewer attaches meaning to the video, “but that’s the viewer’s meaning.”
Stoughton said disagreements on what video in these types of cases shows are largely due to “cognitive biases,” or “unconscious processes that our brains use to make sense of the world without being overwhelmed” by filtering our perceptions “through the lenses of previous experience, identity, and expectation.” He cited two cognitive biases: motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, both tendencies that lead observers to interpret information to reinforce or confirm their identities and worldviews.
“A progressive Democrat who identifies, in part, as being anti-immigration enforcement and a MAGA Republican who identifies, in part, as staunchly supportive of the administration’s immigration crackdown are motivated to see the same incident very differently,” he said, as an example of motivated reasoning.
Video “can be highly informative,” Stoughton said. “However, the existence of video does not assure complete agreement about what happened or how the facts should be characterized.”
Black also cited “outcome bias.” The people shown in a video are making decisions without knowing how it will turn out, but viewers watch these actions in the video while already knowing the outcome. “We as a viewer of the video, we are weighing in on the outcome, not the decision,” he said.
Videos Only Part of Investigation
The two early videos of the incident — the one Trump posted and a closer-up video widely circulated later on Jan. 7 — together show ICE officers approaching an SUV that appears to be partially blocking traffic on a residential street. One officer approaches the driver’s window and then reaches for the door handle. Another officer walks around the passenger side of the car and then in front of the vehicle. The shooting incident happens quickly. In less than five seconds, several actions occur: The car backs up and then moves forward, and the officer at the front of the car draws his weapon and fires, while moving to the side of the vehicle as it speeds away.
The experts we interviewed said there’s a lot more information for investigators to gather. Initially, the FBI and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension were jointly conducting an investigation, but now the FBI is solely leading it, the BCA said in a Jan. 8 statement. Walz said that same day that “Minnesota must be part of this investigation.” In a press conference, the governor said of the FBI being solely in charge, “It feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome, and I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment.”
Obayashi told us having a moving vehicle “makes it much more complicated in terms of evaluation.” He said investigators will recreate what happened, including the speed, direction, where everyone was positioned. “You’re going to have to correlate all that against witness statements,” and analyze all of the available video, including any body-worn police cameras.
On Jan. 9, video that appeared to be from the shooting agent’s cell phone was obtained by several news organizations.
“It can be extremely helpful for investigators to synchronize multiple videos, which can create a way of looking at the same scene from multiple perspectives simultaneously,” Stoughton said. The investigators will also interview the agent who fired the shots, other agents and bystanders. “Witness descriptions almost inevitably disagree to some extent, but they can help shed light on what happened off camera or on how to interpret what is visible on camera.” Forensic evidence on the trajectory of the bullets “can also help shed light on the facts of what happened.”
Black said that “no video can tell you what occurs in the mind of the actor,” meaning we don’t know about the agent’s “subjective inference” and his decision-making. For example, a New York Times analysis of video from different angles said that “the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire.” But, Black asked, could the agent have perceived that the car was turning away in time? “It has to be examined.”
We also can’t know the viewpoint of Good.
The agent’s thought process is critical to a determination of whether the use of deadly force was justified. “Police officers can generally use deadly force in two circumstances,” University of Virginia School of Law professor Rachel Harmon, an expert on policing and the law, explained in a 2021 video on the topic. “The most common is when they feel they are threatened with a use of force or a threat of force that would cause serious bodily harm or death. … And the other is when someone is fleeing a dangerous crime – when someone has engaged in a crime of violence, and are fleeing and the only way to subdue them is to use deadly force against them.”
The administration has cited the first reason. DHS also has a policy on use of force that said, as of 2023, that its officers and agents “may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.”
Stoughton told us there are three likely questions for the investigation: “1) Did the agent put himself into the vehicle’s path of travel unnecessarily? 2) Would a reasonable officer in the agent’s position have perceived that the vehicle’s movement presented a threat of serious bodily harm or death? And 3) if so, could the agent have reasonably dealt with the threat by stepping out of the way rather than shooting the driver? For all three questions, we will need detailed information about the timeline and sequence of events that can only come from obtaining and comparing multiple videos and other sources of evidence.”
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.
After President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to use the U.S. military to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, some lawmakers criticized Trump for ordering it without any authorization from Congress.
Trump, in a Jan. 8 Truth Social post, said he has the power to do that, and questioned the constitutionality of a related law.
“The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me,” Trump wrote.
But Trump went too far by calling the 1973 War Powers Resolution unconstitutional. Courts have repeatedly declined to rule on its constitutionality.
Within days of the Venezuela operation, the Senate advanced a resolution to limit further military operations in Venezuela without congressional backing, with five Republicans joining Democrats in supporting it. But this measure has little chance of being enacted, since it would need Trump’s signature if the Republican-controlled House passes it, which is uncertain.
For decades, presidents and Congress have battled over who has the institutional power to declare war.
The U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the right to declare war. The last time Congress did that was at the beginning of World War II.
Since then, presidents have generally initiated military action using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without an official declaration of war.
In August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress to back his effort to widen the United States’ role in Vietnam. He received approval with enactment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which easily passed both chambers of Congress.
As public sentiment turned against the Vietnam War, lawmakers became increasingly frustrated about their secondary role in sending U.S. troops abroad. So in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto.
The resolution required the president to report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress approves. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, an additional 30 days are allowed to end operations.
Presidents have often, but not always, followed the act’s requirements, usually framing any entreaties to Congress as a voluntary bid to secure “support” for military action rather than “permission.” This has sometimes taken the form of an “authorization for the use of military force” — legislation that amounts to a modern version of a declaration of war.
Trump has a point that presidents from both political parties have sought to assert power and limit lawmakers’ interference, including in court. But these arguments were never backed by court rulings.
Between 1973 and 2012, Congress’ nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found eight judicial decisions involving the War Powers Resolution, and “in each and every case” the ruling declined to offer a binding opinion, always finding a reason, such as a lack of standing to sue, to avoid taking a side.
Grok Under Fire for Deepfake Bikini Image of ICE Shooting Victim
Grok, the AI chatbot launched by Elon Musk’s xAI, generated a bikini image of Renee Nicole Good, the woman killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, after a user request. The AI altered an existing photo, sparking backlash over ethical violations and potential illegality under the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act. Grok has a record of fulfilling similar nonconsensual image requests. Conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair, who has a child with Musk, says Grok also generated bikini images of her as a minor. Musk and DHS officials echoed unsupported claims labeling Good a “domestic terrorist.” (Read More – Mother Jones Rating)
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to Shut Down Amid Financial and Legal Losses
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will cease operations May 3, 2026, after losing over $350 million in two decades. The closure follows prolonged labor disputes, a recent Supreme Court loss, and challenges facing local journalism. Founded in 1786, the paper won a Pulitzer Prize in 2019 for its Tree of Life synagogue shooting coverage. Union leaders blame management for undermining journalists’ rights and city news coverage. (Read More – The Hill Rating)
FTC Seeks to Revive Probe Into Media Matters Over Ad Boycott Claims
The FTC is urging a federal court to lift an injunction blocking its investigation into Media Matters’ role in alleged advertiser collusion after a report on pro-Nazi content on X. Media Matters argues the probe is unconstitutional retaliation for protected journalism. A federal judge previously sided with the watchdog. The FTC claims its investigation targets broader industry conduct. Media Matters has until February 17 to respond. (Read More – MediaPost Rating)
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 Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate, we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)
Claim Codes: Red= Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other
Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC
TRUE
Claim via Social Media: In January 2026, a Hilton hotel in Minnesota refused service to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Snopes rating: True (Everpeak hospitality-owned Hilton franchise refused service to ICE agents. Both Hilton and Everpeak Hospitality apologized, stating the incident was against their policies and values. After a video showed the hotel refusing service to a social media user seeking a DHS discount, Hilton said it was removing the hotel system.)
Claim by President Donald Trump (R): Nicolás Maduro was “flooding America with deadly fentanyl.”
PolitiFact rating: False (U.S. government reports and drug trafficking experts say illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. primarily comes from Mexico using precursor chemicals from China; there is no evidence linking Venezuela or Maduro to fentanyl trafficking, and Maduro’s U.S. indictment does not mention fentanyl.)
Claim via Social Media: Katie Miller, a former White House adviser and wife of senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, posted a map of Greenland overlaid with the U.S. flag and captioned with the word “SOON” following the January 2026 U.S. military operation in Venezuela.
Snopes rating: True (She did post it, and Stephen Miller amplified it.)
Claim via Social Media: Mamdani’s policing policy on domestic violence calls would mean “husbands are allowed to beat their wives”.
Lead Stories rating: False (The quote was shortened, and it changed its meaning. A longer, more elaborate fragment of his speech shows that he suggested that it shouldn’t be the police, but specially trained specialists who would respond to domestic violence calls.)
Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact-checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
In January 2026, Michel Yakovleff, ex-general for NATO, said on French TV, “If Trump moves on Greenland, Europeans must be ready to fight the U.S.”
Rating:
Context
Yakovleff did not make the statement attributed to him. He did give an interview on French TV in which he discussed Greenland, but his comments stopped short of explicitly calling for Europe to fight the U.S. in the event of an invasion. In an email to Snopes, Yakovleff said he would recommend Europe send a symbolic “small trigger force” to Greenland instead of actually “antagonizing” the U.S.
As Trump’s threats against Greenland amped up — White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 6 that “U.S. military is always an option” for takeover — concerns regarding the stability of NATO intensified. The U.S. takeover of European territory would signal a break in an alliance created after World War II to counter Soviet and communist expansion.
Amid this geopolitical tension, a claim emerged that a former top NATO general, Michel Yakovleff, called for Europe to “fight” the U.S. if Trump seized Greenland.
The claim spread on multiple platforms, including Facebookand X (archived). Severalposts used outdatedimages of Yakovleff being interviewed, further muddying the origins of the quote. One post claimed that Yakovleff said, “If Trump moves on Greenland, Europeans must be ready to fight the U.S.”
However, the statement was incorrectly attributed to Yakovleff, who did not say those words. He did give an interview on French TV in which he discussed Greenland, but his comments stopped short of explicitly calling for Europe to fight the U.S. in the event of an invasion.
The interview aired on Télévision Française 1, a French media network (beginning at approximately 1:02:24). Rather than call for war, Yakovleff advocated “divorce” from the U.S. if NATO ends and “Trump talks to us like that.” The following is an English translation of the circulated clip, verified by a native speaker (emphasis ours):
It’s the end of NATO, yes, by definition. So we won’t go to war with the United States because we don’t have the means to go to war with the United States. Like a child faced with a toxic parent, we’re taken by surprise, that’s for sure. On the other hand, they wanted Greenland, so we kicked them out of Rammstein and Naples. You go home, you’ve got nothing, plus a stick. Who’s put out? We are. […] If NATO ends and Trump talks to us like that, it’s time to talk to the lawyers and speak of divorce. We need to end it here.
It’s unclear where the incorrect quote originated, but Yakovleff said in an email to Snopes that the interviewer also did not give him time to “elaborate or qualify” his position. When we asked if he’d stated the quote in question, he said, “I may have said something along those lines. … But it does not represent my full views, which are a bit more sophisticated than what I started to say before being interrupted.”
He proposed a “European symbolic force” that would send a message instead of actual war. Given NATO’s priority of defending Ukraine amid its war with Russia and its desire to keep the U.S. on board, he wrote: “Antagonizing Trump openly and directly is not on the table right now,” though he said the stakes were “absolutely existential to NATO.”
Regarding a symbolic, “small trigger force,” he clarified:
If I were a counselor to European leaders ([French President Emmanuel] Macron in particular), I would advocate upping the ante on Greenland, by deploying a small trigger force to Greenland. For example: protecting public buildings. That would mean that if US troops landed, they would have to face the prospect of engaging some of their allies. Of course they would win. But still, from the perspective of US Marines, Special Forces or whatever, actually shooting at European allies would be slightly problematic. This implies that the European symbolic force would operate openly under Rules of Engagement (ROE) that allow initiative of fire, for example, against helicopters landing unauthorized forces. Or forces attempting to take over a public building.
In the court of public opinion, in America, imagine the prospect of parliament set ablaze by American fire power, with Allied casualties and prisoners. Humiliating for Europeans, OK, but what about American opinion? A festering sore, for sure.
We wrote to NATO seeking information regarding the alliance’s official stance on Greenland, and an official responded that NATO has a clear interest in maintaining security and stability in the Arctic. “NATO is also enhancing its focus on the High North through improved situational awareness, training and exercises to ensure readiness in all conditions, and Allies are investing in key air and maritime capabilities,” the official wrote.
The scope of this investment in “air and maritime capabilities” is unclear, as of this writing.
Bryant, Miranda, et al. ‘European Leaders Rally behind Greenland as US Ramps up Threats’. The Guardian, 6 Jan. 2026. World News. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/stephen-miller-donald-trump-threats-take-over-greenland.
‘Face à Darius Rochebin du lundi 5 janvier 2026 – Édition spéciale : jusqu’où ira Trump ?’ TF1 INFO, 5 Jan. 2026, https://www.tf1info.fr/replay-lci/videos/video-face-a-darius-rochebin-du-lundi-5-janvier-2026-edition-speciale-jusqu-ou-ira-trump-42543-2416853.html.
Gambino, Lauren. ‘White House Says Using US Military Is “Always an Option” for Seizing Greenland’. The Guardian, 6 Jan. 2026. US News. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/06/trump-greenland-control-us-military.
Lemire, Shane Harris, Isaac Stanley-Becker, Jonathan. ‘Trump Seizing Greenland Could Set Off a Chain Reaction’. The Atlantic, 6 Jan. 2026, https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/01/greenland-trump-venezuela-nato/685511/.
‘NATO Spending by Country 2025’. World Population Review, 5 Jan. 2026, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country.
Sanger, David, et al. ‘Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years’. The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html.
‘Trump’s Greenland Idea Isn’t New. The US Has Pursued It at Least 3 Times Before’. AP News, 7 Jan. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/us-greenland-denmark-history-trump-b5e10babd57ae8ab4069e52df09d91df.
‘White House Says Military “always an Option” in Greenland as European Leaders Reject US Takeover’. AP News, 6 Jan. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-european-union-greenland-denmark-c5995b27ac8aee84d0064991c86d633e.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described the actions of Renee Nicole Good, a Minneapolis woman fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, as “domestic terrorism.”
Noem said Good refused to obey orders to get out of her car and “weaponize(d) her vehicle” and “attempted to run” over an officer. Minnesota officials dispute Noem’s account, citing videos showing Good attempting to drive away.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a member of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, said Jan. 8 on CNN that Noem’s statement is “an abuse of the term” domestic terrorism.
The Trump administration has turned to the phrase in recent months, including in an October immigration enforcement-related shooting.
In September, the administration issued a memo calling on law enforcement to prioritize threats including “violent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,” saying domestic terrorists were using violence to advance “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders.” Experts said it violates free speech laws.
Good, a mother of three and a poet, lived in the Minneapolis neighborhood where she was fatally shot. She was a United States citizen and had no criminal background, The Associated Press reported. Good’s ex-husband told the AP that she wasn’t an activist and he hadn’t known her to participate in protests. Good had dropped off her 6-year-old son at school and was driving home when she encountered ICE.
The Trump administration has ramped up Minneapolis immigration enforcement in recent weeks, following news reports about fraud in the Somali community.
A makeshift memorial honoring the victim of a fatal shooting involving federal law enforcement agents is taped to a post near the site of the previous day’s shooting, Jan. 8, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP)
What is domestic terrorism?
Federal agencies have their own definitions of domestic terrorism.
The FBI, citing a specific section of the U.S. code, defines domestic terrorism as acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state criminal laws and appear intended to intimidate or coerce civilians; influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping, according to a 2020 memo.
Homeland Security uses a similar definition, citing a different statute that defines domestic terrorism as dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote in 2023, “Unlike foreign terrorism, the federal government does not have a mechanism to formally charge an individual with domestic terrorism which sometimes makes it difficult (and occasionally controversial) to formally characterize someone as a domestic terrorist.”
In 2022, former FBI agent Michael German, then a fellow with New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice, told PolitiFact that 51 federal statutes apply to domestic terrorism.
“I think there is (and always has been) confusion between rhetoric and the law in regard to terrorism,” German told PolitiFact after the Minneapolis shooting. “There is no law that authorizes the U.S. government to designate any group or individual in the US as a ‘domestic terrorist.’”
The federal government periodically revises how it describes threats. For example, in 2025, federal officials sometimes used the term “nihilistic violent extremists” to describe perpetrators who don’t subscribe to one ideology but appear to be motivated by a desire to, as one expert put it, “gamify” real life violence. Experts told PolitiFact that the term is valid, but cautioned against overuse or citing it to obscure other ideological motivations such as white supremacy.
A makeshift memorial honoring the victim of a fatal shooting involving federal law enforcement agents is taped to a post near the site of the previous day’s shooting, Jan. 8, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP)
The Trump administration has broadened the domestic terrorism label
The DHS rhetoric is similar to another immigration enforcement-related shooting in October. During DHS’s months-long Chicago immigration crackdown dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” a Border Patrol agent shot U.S. citizen Marimar Martinez five times.
A DHS press release described Martinez as a “domestic terrorist” and accused her of ramming her vehicle into the Border Patrol agent’s car, carrying a semiautomatic weapon and having a “history of doxxing federal agents.”
A federal judge granted prosecutors’ motion to dismiss federal charges against Martinez in November.
“Ultimately, there was a determination when everything was evaluated that there were serious questions about the officers’ narratives,” legal analyst Joey Jackson told CNN.
The government’s use of the term goes beyond immigration and DHS.
After conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s murder, Trump issued a Sept. 25 memo ordering the attorney general to expand domestic terrorism priorities to include “politically motivated terrorist acts such as organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder.”
Trump signed an executive order a few days before designating antifa, a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists, as a domestic terrorist organization.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to compile a list of groups “engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
Legal experts have raisedalarms about the memo’s potential infringements on the First Amendment.
“Both the order and the memo are ungrounded in fact and law,” Faiza Patel, Brennan Center for Justice director of liberty and national security, wrote. “Acting on them would violate free speech rights, potentially threatening any person or group holding any one of a broad array of disfavored views with investigation and prosecution.”
Experts have also pointed to the memo’s focus on left-wing violence; it does not mention the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, a member of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, months before.
“When a policy directive targets one ideological family and leaves others to the footnotes, it sheds any pretense of neutrality,” Thomas E. Brzozowski, former Justice Department Counsel for Domestic Terrorism, wrote Dec. 12.
Experts raise questions about Noem’s “domestic terrorism” label
Information is still surfacing about what transpired before Good was fatally shot. However, frame-by-frame analyses of video footage by The New York Times and The Washington Post found Good’s vehicle moved toward an ICE agent, but the agent was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of the three shots from his gun from the side of the car as Good veered away.
Brzozowski told PolitiFact that since Good was trying to drive away to “characterize that as domestic terrorism I think is a stretch.”
However, he said the larger concern is that Noem is using the domestic terrorism term absent any actual findings before an investigation.
“Essentially within hours of the incident occurring labeling this activity as domestic terrorism, what that does is effectively strip domestic terrorism of its significance,” he said, calling it a “blatantly partisan effort to label it as domestic terrorism.”
“Now what is domestic terrorism? Whatever the DHS secretary says it is? She can characterize anything she wants as domestic terrorism. She is doing so without any facts to go on.”
Shirin Sinnar, Stanford Law School professor, told PolitiFact, “While intentionally ramming a vehicle for a political purpose could amount to terrorism in a different context, the videos of the Minneapolis incident appear to show a woman attempting to drive away from ICE officers, not hit them. Here, the administration’s calling her a domestic terrorist is simply an attempt to malign a protester and justify her killing by an ICE officer.”
German told PolitiFact after the Minneapolis shooting there isn’t any public evidence to suggest that Good was “engaging in conduct that could have been prosecuted under the terrorism chapter of the U.S. Code,” pointing to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B. “So a government official calling her a domestic terrorist isn’t supported in the law, and is entirely pejorative and prejudicial.”
After bystanders captured video of a masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shooting a woman in Minneapolis, social media users rushed to identify the officer.
“Please help identify this man in connection with the execution of a woman in Minneapolis today at the hands of ICE agents,” read a Jan. 7 Facebook post that showed a man in the shooter’s same tactical gear, but with his face unobstructed by a mask. “Call Minneapolis Police immediately.”
In the image, the man holds a phone in one hand and points with the other. His uniform reads, “Police, federal agent.” Other versions of the image shared on social media showed the man smiling, or with both hands on the phone.
But these aren’t real photos. They were altered from frames in one bystander’s video that was published by the Minnesota Reformer. In the video, the agent kept his face covered.
On Jan. 7, ICE agents approached the vehicle of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen. She started to drive away when an agent fatally shot her at close range.
Several news outlets, including the Minnesota Star Tribune, have identified the agent who fired his gun as Jonathan Ross. Although federal officials have not confirmed his identity, both Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Vice President JD Vance said in separate speaking events that the agent involved in the Jan. 7 shooting had been previously dragged by a car in June. The details Vance described lined up with those in a federal court filing that named the officer as Jonathan Ross.
Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email to PolitiFact, “We are not going to expose the name of this officer. He acted according to his training.”
(Screenshots from X, Facebook)
But on social media, people shared posts falsely identifying the ICE agent as “Steven Grove” or “Steve Grove.” There is a real person named Steven Grove who resembles the unmasked person in the AI-generated images. He owns Sigwo Arms, a gun shop in Springfield, Missouri, but he told PolitiFact he has never even been to Minnesota and has nothing to do with the incident.
Grove told PolitiFact in an email that he is based in Springfield, does not work for ICE, and retired from the Army National Guard in 2023 after serving for 23 years. Grove told the Springfield Daily Citizen that he was either in his Springfield shop or at home on Jan. 7, when the Minneapolis shooting unfolded.
Still, Grove said, the social media speculation about his involvement came with a cost: Meta removed Grove’s personal Facebook account and when he appealed that decision, the platform quickly denied that appeal. Grove posted about the experience on his business’s Facebook page.
“It’s gonna be a long day,” he wrote.
Steve Grove is also the name of the Minnesota Star Tribune’s CEO and publisher. In a Jan. 8 X post that did not use Grove’s name, the news outlet said, “To be clear, the ICE agent has no known affiliation with the Star Tribune.”
It is unclear precisely what accounts first shared the viral images originated, but on X, usersasked the AI chatbot Grok to remove the man’s mask from images they uploaded. Grok fulfilled such requests and filled in part of the man’s face, but the AI creations are fictional.
These images don’t show the unmasked ICE agent who shot a woman in Minneapolis. We rate claims that they do Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
After capturing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and saying the U.S. was taking control of the South American country, President Donald Trump and others in his administration suggested that Greenland could be the next U.S. target.
The day the U.S. took Maduro into custody to face U.S. drug-trafficking charges, Katie Miller, wife of senior White House aide Stephen Miller, posted on X a map of Greenland overlaid with the U.S. flag. “Soon,” the caption said.
The next day, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Stephen Miller about Greenland. It’s geographically the world’s largest island — about five times the size of California — and has about 56,000 residents. Denmark colonized it centuries ago, and later incorporated it into Denmark.
Miller said the Trump administration’s longstanding policy is that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”
When Tapper asked whether the administration would rule out military action, Miller said, “The real question is: By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?”
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told PolitiFact that Trump is “confident Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
We asked experts about the history of the Denmark-Greenland relationship and Greenland’s status under international law. They agreed Greenland’s status as part of Denmark is rock solid and that any attempt to take over Greenland would flout international law.
What the Trump administration has floated
U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed interest in controlling Greenland, which is located between the United States and Europe. The naval corridor between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom, called the “GIUK Gap,” is a strategic channel in the Arctic because it is a main transit route for Europe, the Americas and Russia. Greenland also has potentially valuable mineral deposits.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump told reporters Jan. 4 aboard Air Force One.
Two days later, the White House issued a statement that Greenland is “vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region” and that Trump and his team are “discussing a range of options” which could include utilizing the U.S. military.
If the United States did attempt to seize Greenland, it is unlikely to face military resistance, wrote Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama.
“Taking Greenland won’t be difficult,” Daalder wrote Jan. 6. “Its population of 50,000 won’t be able offer much resistance, nor will Denmark want to enter a fight it cannot win.” (Miller said something similar in his interview with Tapper: “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”)
Daalder warned, though, that such U.S. military action could damage the credibility of NATO, the mutual defense pact the U.S. has led for decades.
“To suggest that American security in the Arctic requires that it owns Greenland implicitly indicates that the NATO security commitment is hollow and insufficient for its security,” Daalder wrote. “That’s hardly a reassuring message to the other 31 NATO members, many of whom face far more immediate threats than the United States.”
What is the basis of Denmark’s claim to Greenland?
Denmark’s colonization of Greenland dates to the 1720s. In 1933, an international court settled a territorial dispute between Denmark and Norway, ruling that as of July 1931, Denmark “possessed a valid title to the sovereignty over all Greenland.”
But Greenland has not been a colony for more than three-quarters of a century, said Diane Marie Amann, a University of Georgia emerita law professor.
After World War II, colonialism “was decidedly rejected in the United Nations charter,” said Tom Ginsburg, a University of Chicago international law professor.
After the 1945 approval of the United Nations charter — the organization’s founding document and the foundation of much of international law — Denmark incorporated Greenland through a constitutional amendment and gave it representation in the Danish Parliament in 1953. Denmark told the United Nations that any colonial-type status had ended, and the United Nations General Assembly accepted this change in November 1954, said Greg Fox, a Wayne State University law professor. The United States voted to accept the new status.
Since then, Greenland has, incrementally but consistently, moved toward greater autonomy.
Greenlandic political activists successfully pushed for and achieved home rule in 1979, which established its parliament. Today, Greenland is a district within the sovereign state of Denmark, Amann said, with two elected representatives in Denmark’s parliament. These representatives have full voting rights — greater authority than the U.S. gives congressional delegates for its territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
In 2008, Greenlanders voted 76% to 24% in favor of expanding the island’s autonomous status, in a non-binding referendum. This led to a 2009 law that recognized Greenlanders as a distinct people, as well as making Greenlandic the island’s official language and granting Greenland power over its mineral resources.
A satellite photo highlighting Greenland, as well as Iceland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. (NASA/public domain)
What is Greenland’s status under international law?
The 2009 law established that the Greenlandic people have the power to pursue independence from Denmark if they choose. To date, they have not done so.
While Danish law gives Greenland substantial local control, “That doesn’t mean that Greenland is any less a part of Denmark for international law purposes,” Fox said. “Because Greenland is fully incorporated into Denmark, it means that under international law, Denmark can both represent Greenland’s interests and people to other countries and can assert its rights if other countries cause it harm.”
Fox compared Greenland’s status within Denmark to Michigan’s or Ohio’s within the U.S. “The U.S. represents their interests and the interests of their people to the rest of the international community,” he said. Denmark’s sovereignty “covers all its territory, including Greenland,” Fox said.
The United Nations’ charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, says members must refrain from threatening or using force “against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Amann said this means that “no other country may assist or secure such a secession, whether by the actual use of military force or by threatening to use such force.”
If Greenland “wanted Denmark to transfer them to the United States, they might be able to request that,” Ginsburg said. “But that’s not the situation now.”
U.S. history of recognizing Denmark’s authority over Greenland
The U.S. has recognized Denmark’s “territorial sovereignty” over Greenland on multiple occasions, beyond the 1953 United Nations vote:
The United States’ purchase of the Danish West Indies — now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands — included a 1917 agreement with Denmark that mentioned Greenland. Then-Secretary of State Robert Lansing said the U.S. government “will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.”
In 1946, the U.S. under President Harry Truman formally proposed buying Greenland. Denmark declined to sell.
In 1951, the U.S. signed a Greenland-related defense agreement with Denmark, which it updated in 2004. The agreement, which affirmed and outlined the American military’s presence, said in its first paragraph that Greenland’s status had changed “from colony to that of an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Collectively, the existence of these treaties “means the United States believed (Denmark) was the country with authority over Greenland,” Fox said.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
After an immigration officer fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, social media users started posting images they said showed the woman. But in the midst of the breaking news, users misidentified her.
The photo shows a short-haired woman wearing red lipstick, eyeliner and a green sweater, and some users said she was the 37-year-old killed when an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot into her vehicle.
“This is Renee Nicole Good, a dedicated wife and mother who was killed by Donald Trump’s ICE thugs today,” reads an X post with over 600,000 views. “RETWEET to honor Good’s memory.”
Federal, state and local officials have given conflicting narratives of the shooting, but the woman in that photo isn’t Good.
Doing a reverse image search, we found the photo in a 2020 Facebook post from the English department at Old Dominion University, where Good went to college in Norfolk, Virginia.
The department shared photos of multiple students in the post, including one of Good, who was among the winners. The post identified her as Renee Macklin, which was her name at the time. But social media users shared another image of another woman recognized in the post. The university identified this person in the photo’s caption as another woman.
(Screenshot of a photo of Good on the Facebook page of the English department where she went to college.)
PolitiFact reviewed multiple other photos of Good shared by localandnationalmedia outlets and none show the short-haired woman in the image circulating online.
In criticizing Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and vetoing a bill that would fund a water project in the state, President Donald Trump has claimed that people are leaving the state “in droves,” but that’s not what the available data show.
Despite having supported the project during his first term, the president wrote in a memo to Congress that he nixed the bill because it “would continue the failed policies of the past by forcing Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs of a local water project.”
But he suggested in an interview with Politico that another contributing factor was his impression that the population of Colorado was declining. In social media posts criticizing Polis, Trump repeated the claim about people moving out of the state, once citing one moving company. Demographic data and figures from other moving companies contradict the claim.
This was one of only two bills the president vetoed during his first year of this term, and the legislation had passed the House and Senate by uncontroversial voice votes. Some Coloradopoliticalinsiders and observers have speculated that the veto was political retribution against Rep. Lauren Boebert — a Trump ally who represents a Colorado district affected by the project and who diverged from the president when she demanded the release of files on Jeffrey Epstein — or against Polis — a Democrat who has sparred with Trump over the incarceration of Tina Peters, a former Mesa County clerk who was convicted of Colorado state charges of compromising election equipment to undermine the outcome of the 2020 election.
The House may vote on Jan. 8 on overriding the veto, which could be successful given the broad support for the bill.
The project it would fund — called the Arkansas Valley Conduit — would pipe reservoir water for 130 miles to about 50,000 people in an area that has naturally occurring radionuclides, including radium and uranium, in the groundwater. The AVC has a decades-long history as part of the extensive Fryingpan-Arkansas Project that brought water to users across the state after it was approved in 1962.
The cost of the AVC project so far has been over $500million, and the total projected cost is $1.4 billion, according to an estimate based on 2023 prices from the Eastern Colorado Area Office of the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which is overseeing the project with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. That total is roughly twice as much as the 2016 estimate, according to the bureau.
“Despite estimated project cost increases, the cost of the pipeline remains comparable to construction costs of similar pipelines currently under construction by Reclamation,” the bureau said on its website.
Colorado’s Population
On Dec. 31, two days after Trump vetoed the bill, he told Politico, “They’re wasting a lot of money and people are leaving the state. They’re leaving the state in droves. Bad governor.” He also posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, “California and Colorado are two of the TOP OUTBOUND STATES IN 2025 (United Van Lines!) – In other words, PEOPLE LEAVING!!!” Later the same day, he said in a post that “people are leaving in record numbers.”
We asked the White House for clarification on the president’s reasoning for vetoing the bill and for evidence to support the claim that people are leaving Colorado “in droves.” We were directed to the president’s official explanation to Congress and got no response to the question about population shifts.
Based on Trump’s social media post, it appears that the claim comes from the annual roundup provided by the moving company United Van Lines. It reported making a total of 6,633 moves into and out of Colorado in 2025 — 2,986 were for people moving into the state and 3,647 were for people moving out of the state. That put Colorado — with 55% of its moving traffic leaving the state — among the “top outbound states for 2025.”
According to the report, the largest portion of those who left — about 31% — did so because of family obligations, and the second largest — about 23% — did so for a job.
But that’s not the only moving company that operates in Colorado, and, as NBC’s Denver affiliate, 9NEWS, noted, several other moving companies — including U-Haul, Atlas Van Lines,North American Moving Services and Allied Van Lines — reported either a slight influx, a slight outflow or neutral moving trends for the state in 2025.
Because Trump suggested that people are leaving Colorado “in droves” due to a “bad governor,” it’s also worth noting that Census data published by the website USAFacts show that since Polis took office in 2019, the moderate upward trend in the state’s population over the last decade has continued, although the data is only through 2022.
Similarly, data from the State Demography Office show comparable estimates and projections through 2025. The office estimated Colorado’s population was 5.7 million in 2019 and projected the figure grew to nearly 6 million for 2025.
We reached out to the office for more details, but didn’t receive a response. In July, however, Colorado State Demographer Kate Watkins told 9NEWS that “Colorado has, and is projected to continue to, grow faster than the rest of the United States.”
Political Retribution?
The president posted more about Polis on Dec. 31, writing in the afternoon on Truth Social: “God Bless Tina Peters, who is now, for two years out of nine, sitting in a Colorado Maximum Security Prison, at the age of 73, and sick, for the ‘crime’ of trying to stop the massive voter fraud that goes on in her State (where people are leaving in record numbers!).” He called Polis a “Scumbag” and the Republican district attorney who prosecuted Peters “disgusting,” adding, “May they rot in Hell. FREE TINA PETERS!”
Peters, who tookoffice as the Mesa County clerk and recorder in 2019, was convicted in state court in 2024 of several charges related to breaking into county election equipment in an attempt to prove that Trump had won the 2020 presidential election, despite the fact that former President Joe Biden won both the electoral college and the popular vote — garnering 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million, nationally, and winning Colorado with about 55% of that state’s vote compared to Trump’s 42%.
On Dec. 11, Trump announced on Truth Social that he would grant her a “full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
He also signed an executive grant of clemency that is dated Dec. 5.
But the president’s pardon power extends only to federal charges. Peters was convicted of state charges.
“No President has jurisdiction over state law nor the power to pardon a person for state convictions,” Polis said on Dec. 11 on X. “This is a matter for the courts to decide, and we will abide by court orders.”
State leaders have suggested that the veto may be political retribution.
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.
