Quick Take

Rockefeller Center is celebrating Pride Month with a display of rainbow flags to show it is “an inclusive and diverse space for all.” But an Instagram post uses an image of Pride flags at Rockefeller Center while falsely claiming it shows the “United Nations replaces all 193 country flags with LGBT flags.” The U.N. never changes its flag display, a spokesperson said.

Full Story

Many companies and institutions observe Pride Month each June to show support for the LGBTQ+ community. This year, the rainbow displays and expressions of inclusivity have met with backlash from some conservatives. 

Target, for example, removed merchandise from its “Pride Collection” following protests and threats from some customers, citing concern for employee safety. Even the popular Cracker Barrel restaurant chain faced a boycott for acknowledging Pride Month. 

Social media posts have fanned the flames by spreading misinformation about support for Pride Month. As we wrote, an artist’s animated video showing a rainbow appearing to encircle the Arc de Triomphe in Paris was making the rounds with the false claim that the rainbow was physically attached to the historic monument and “defaced” it. 

A June 8 Instagram post misrepresents a different Pride Month display. The text on the post says, “The United Nations replaces all 193 country flags with LGBT flags.” It received more than 115,000 likes. 

The post from Clarkson Lawson, who has 126,000 Instagram followers, uses a photo with that text as a backdrop of a video in which he expresses his view that celebrating Pride Month is akin to “special treatment” for the LGBTQ+ community. “Nobody in their right mind wants to be completely inundated with Pride flags for the month of June,” he says in the video.

But the U.N. did not take down the flags of its member nations for Pride Month.

“The only flags that fly in front of the U.N. are the 193 member states’ flags and [those of] the two observers, and the U.N. flag,” Shirin Yaseen, associate spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general, told us in a phone interview. Those flags are always displayed and are never replaced for occasions such as Pride Month, Yaseen said. 

UNAIDS, the U.N. agency charged with ending the AIDS epidemic, did issue a statement affirming “solidarity” with LGBTQ+ communities. 

“Pride Month provides an opportunity to celebrate the resilience, diversity, and achievements” of those communities, while serving as “a reminder of the important collective commitment to human rights, equality, and the urgent need to decriminalize same-sex relationships,” the agency said.

In addition, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said in a June 1 tweet, “Let’s celebrate the richness & diversity of the LGBTIQ+ community and honour their immense contributions to the human rights movement.”

Rather than at the U.N. headquarters in New York City, the photo shown in the Instagram post was actually taken at the plaza of Rockefeller Center, possibly in 2019. 

On its website, Rockefeller Center explains the celebration of Pride Month has become a “staple” at its space in Manhattan, “playing a key role in ensuring there’s an inclusive and diverse space for all in the heart of Midtown.”

“Throughout the month of June, our campus will be awash in signs and symbols of Pride with rainbow pathways, hundreds of Pride flags surrounding The Rink, and vinyl decals decorating its spaces,” the center’s website says.

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

Sources

Cavale, Siddharth. “Target removing some LGBTQ merchandise following customer backlash.” Reuters. 24 May 2023.

Peiser, Jaclyn. “Target stores see more bomb threats over Pride merchandise.” Washington Post. 12 Jun 2023.

Brooks, Khristopher J. “Bud Light loses its footing as America’s best-selling beer.” CBS News Moneywatch. 9 Jun 2023.

Brooks, Khristopher J. “Cracker Barrel faces boycott call for celebrating Pride Month.” 9 Jun 2023.

Jones, Brea. “Posts Misrepresent Virtual Rainbow on Arc de Triomphe for Pride Month.” FactCheck.org. 12 Jun 2023.

Yaseen, Shirin. Associate spokesperson for Executive Office of the Secretary-General, United Nations. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 13 Jun 2023.

United Nations. “UNAIDS celebrates Pride Month and calls for decriminalization of same-sex relationships.” Press release. 1 Jun 2023.

Rockefeller Center. “Pride at Rockefeller Center 2023.” Website.

Wikimedia Commons. Photo captioned, “Regenbogenflaggen an der Rockefeller Plaza, New York City, anlässlich des fünfzigjährigen Jubiläums der Stonewall Riots 2019.” 

The post Viral Video Makes False Claim About Pride Month Flag Display appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take 

A privately owned company called the White House Gift Shop is selling a coin commemorating the second indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, contrary to a misleading tweet from Sen. Bill Cassidy, the online sales company is not affiliated with the White House in Washington, D.C.

Full Story

Donald Trump is the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges. Twice.

He was first charged in a New York state court in April for crimes related to hush money payments he allegedly made to a porn actor. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

On June 13, he was charged in federal court in Florida for alleged crimes related to mishandling classified documents and obstructing federal officials who tried to retrieve the files after he left office. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

The day before Trump’s second arraignment, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, posted a video to his Twitter account admonishing a company called the White House Gift Shop for selling a coin commemorating Trump’s second indictment.

The video was an installment in Cassidy’s recurring Twitter segment called “Outrage of the Week.”

In this installment, Cassidy said: “Outrage of the week — the White House Gift Shop is putting out a commemorative coin for Donald Trump’s indictment. Now, whatever you think about it, whatever party you are, you’ve got to admit it’s poor taste, that it’s capitalizing upon something without his permission, I’m sure. It’s the wrong thing to do. Have a sense of decency, White House Gift Shop.”

Cassidy’s tweet fails to say that the shop is not affiliated with the White House in Washington, D.C., or the federal government, leaving the false impression that the Biden White House is involved.

But the White House Gift Shop is a privately run, web-based retail sales company not affiliated with the White House. We’ve explained this before, when online posts in 2020 criticized the company’s sale of coins commemorating the COVID-19 pandemic and falsely suggested that the shop was affiliated with the White House.

The shop also sold a coin commemorating Trump’s first indictment which, like the coin at the center of the current controversy, sold for $100.

The website describes the coins as “Our Newest Narrative Great Moments in Presidential History in Narrative Coin Art.” It goes on to say, “Epilogue Coin #2 in the Series of the Administration of Presidential Donald J. Trump is a Continuation of the White House Gift Shop’s Historic Moments Original & Unique Global Coin Collection that Chronicles Pivotal Moments in American Presidential & Political History.”

Although Cassidy didn’t explicitly claim that the shop was connected to the executive branch, some social media users understood it that way. “Truly, a politicized White House,” one comment read.

Some other accounts on various platforms have also picked up the claim and repeated it without explaining that the gift shop is not affiliated with the White House. One post on Truth Social, for example, says that Republicans should “insist that the White House Gift shop be closed down immediately under the Biden Cabal.”

We reached out to Cassidy’s Senate office and were referred to his campaign for comment because the video appeared on his campaign Twitter account. We asked his campaign by email if the senator knew that the website isn’t affiliated with the White House and, if so, why he chose to highlight that company’s merchandise. We didn’t get a response.

It’s worth noting that Cassidy, who is not up for reelection until 2026, was one of seven Republicans who voted to find Trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors following the former president’s second impeachment after the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Cassidy has also said he doesn’t think Trump could win the general election in 2024.

So, Cassidy hasn’t always supported the former president, but his suggestion that the executive branch is unfairly targeting Trump with commemorative coins is misleading.

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

Sources

Waxman, Olivia. “Donald Trump Is the First President Ever Criminally Charged. Others Have Come Close Though.” Time. Updated 30 Mar 2023.

Farley, Robert and D’Angelo Gore. “What’s in Trump’s Indictment?” FactCheck.org. 4 Apr 2023.

Farley, Robert, D’Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely. “Q&A on Trump’s Federal Indictment.” FactCheck.org. 9 Jun 2023.

Cassidy, Bill (@BillCassidy). “The White House Gift Shop should not be selling a commemorative coin marking Donald Trump’s indictment. This is totally outrageous.” Twitter. 12 Jun 2023.

The White House Gift Shop, Inc. “APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN MICHIGAN.” Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. 7 Nov 2022.

Fichera, Angelo. “The White House Isn’t Selling Coronavirus Coins.” FactCheck.org. Updated 5 Oct 2020.

Farley, Robert. “How Many Died as a Result of Capitol Riot?” FactCheck.org. Updated 21 Mar 2022.

Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Trump’s Falsehood-Filled ‘Save America’ Rally.” FactCheck.org. 6 Jan 2021.

The post Online Posts Misrepresent Coin Commemorating Trump’s Second Indictment appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take 

A video artist posted an animation of a large rainbow coiling around and through the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on June 1 in celebration of Pride Month and support for the LGBTQ+ community. But posts on social media falsely suggested the rainbow had been physically installed and “defaced” the historic structure.

Full Story

In honor of Pride Month during June, some companies show support for the LGBTQ+ community by incorporating a rainbow into their branding — such as on a logo or merchandise —  or donating money to a nonprofit focused on issues related to the community. 

Ian Padgham, a video artist from California now living in Bordeaux, France, created an animation of a large rainbow installation coiling around and through the Arc de Triomphe — a monument in Paris to honor fallen soldiers — in celebration of Pride Month.

In the video, the rainbow appears to be attached to the Arc de Triomphe, and at the rainbow’s end is a cloud with the words “marche des fiertés” — which is French for Pride March, a parade scheduled for June 24 in Paris.

But posts on social media are using the video to falsely claim the Arc de Triomphe was “defaced” by the rainbow.

“The Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the iconic memorial opened in 1836 to commemorate war heroes and soldiers who died during wars has been defaced with a giant Rainbow to celebrate Pride,” said a tweet by Oli London, a spokesperson for the Fairness First PAC, a “parental rights” organization in the U.S. opposed to “radical gender ideology” in schools.

“Extremely disrespectful and appears to have been done by the city or some well organized vandals,” another Twitter user said in response to London’s tweet.

“Does any other fringe, minority group get so much attention – veterans, autistic, homeless, amputees, disabled, those with mental health and suicide issues? The answer is NO – ask yourself, WHY? Who/what is the machine behind this hard sell – and what an insult to the dead soldiers this represents,” read a Facebook post.

But as we said, the rainbow is a computer-generated animation, not a physical installation, and the French monument was not defaced or damaged in any way.

Padgham, whose other virtual creations in Europe and elsewhere appear on his Instagram page, shared the clip of the Pride Month rainbow on social media on June 1. One of his Instagram posts received more than 77,000 likes.

“Arc-en-ciel de Triomphe, Paris. Happy #PrideMonth everyone!!” Padgham said in a tweet. 

He explained to one Twitter user who assumed the artist had used artificial intelligence to create the video that he had, instead, utilized more traditional animation techniques. “No AI was used,” Padgham wrote. “Just me doing 3D animation and lots of hand-edited details.”

In a response to the false claims on social media, Padgham told the Associated Press, “The problem with social media of course is if something goes viral, you kind of lose control of the messaging.”

“If nothing else, this is a wake-up call to all of us that we’re entering into a period of history where we are not ready for just how bad misinformation is going to get,” Padgham said. “Most people immediately believe what they see.”

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

Sources

Ian Padgham (@origiful). “Arc-en-ciel de Triomphe, Paris. Happy #PrideMonth everyone!!” Twitter. 1 Jun 2023. 

Ian Padgham (@origiful). “No AI was used. Just me doing 3D animation and lots of hand-edited details.” Twitter. 1 Jun 2023. 

“History of the Arc de triomphe.” Paris Arc de Triomphe. Accessed 7 Jun 2023. 

Fairness First PAC. “Spokespeople.” Accessed 7 Jun 2023. 

Amidi, Sophie and Taj Shorter. “It’s Pride Month. Why Didn’t We Change Our Logo?” Plug and  Play. 3 Mar 2023.

Kis, Eva. “These Brands Are Still Flying the Rainbow Flag for Pride Month.” AdWeek. 2 Jun 2023.

Martin, Kendall. “Featured Flyer Spotlight: Ian Padgham.” Skydio. 10 May 2021.

Zeigler, Cyd. “These 6 pro sports leagues and 85 teams have changed their logos to Pride rainbow.” OutSports.com. 7 Jun 2023. 

Fichera, Angelo. “Video of massive rainbow installation at Arc de Triomphe was made using special effects.” Associated Press. 2 Jun 2023.

The post Posts Misrepresent Virtual Rainbow on Arc de Triomphe for Pride Month appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Following a parent’s complaint, one K-8 school in Florida restricted access to a poem by Amanda Gorman that she had read at the 2021 presidential inauguration. The school moved the book in its library to a shelf for upper-grade students only. But social media posts falsely claimed Miami-Dade County had “banned” the book in all its elementary schools.

Full Story

Since 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a handful of high-profile education bills that the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, have condemned or considered controversial. 

DeSantis, who is a 2024 Republican presidential candidate, has signed bills that prohibit public colleges from funding diversity programs and prevent teachers from talking about sexual orientation or gender identity with students in public schools through grade 12.

He also signed CS/HB 7, or the Individual Freedom law, which according to the governor is intended to ban critical race theory from being taught in Florida schools. Critics say the law will limit the teaching of Black history.

On May 20, the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida “in direct response to Governor Ron DeSantis’ aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools.” The NAACP advisory says, “Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.” 

DeSantis also signed a bill that, according to a press release from the governor’s office, “aims to preserve the rights of parents to make decisions about what materials their children are exposed to in school.” 

On March 29, a parent filed a complaint with a K-8 school in Miami-Dade County about a poem read by Amanda Gorman during President Joe Biden’s inauguration. As a result, the book containing the poem was moved to a section of the school library reserved for students in sixth, seventh and eighth grades. 

The Associated Press reported that the school “banned” the poem — though the AP later changed the headline of the story to say it was “barred for younger children.”

Posts on social media began to spread the misleading claim that Miami-Dade County had “banned” Amanda Gorman’s poem from all 158 elementary schools in the county. 

“FLORIDA FASCISM. Miami-Dade County has banned the poem read by Amanda Gorman during President Biden’s inauguration from elementary schools following the objection of a single parent,” read a post on Instagram, which was shared by comedian D.L. Hughley.

The posts exaggerate the action taken in Florida. The poem was not “banned” or restricted at all elementary schools in the county. Access to the poem was restricted in one school to students in the upper grades.

At Bob Graham Education Center, a K-8 school located in Miami Lakes, one parent complained about five different reading materials — including the poem “The Hill We Climb” by Gorman. As a result of the complaint, four of the five materials were restricted from students in grades K-5, the Miami Herald reported. 

The other four books noted in the parent’s complaint were “The ABCs of Black History,” “Love to Langston” by Tony Medina, “Countries in the News: Cuba” by Kieran Walsh, and “Cuban Kids” by George Ancona. 

The parent cited “hate messages” and “CRT” — or critical race theory — as some of the reasons for the complaint, according to documents shared with the Miami Herald and posted on Twitter by the Florida Freedom to Read Project.

Following the parent’s complaint, the books were reviewed by a committee at the Miami Lakes school, and it was decided the material was appropriate for the students in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades.

The Florida Freedom to Read Project shared another tweet that included the meeting minutes from the committee review.

“Below are the minutes from the review committee meeting that was held on 4/5/23. Aside from THE HILL WE CLIMB, all the books were written w/K-5 readers in mind. Due to ‘age appropriate’ language in HB7, this committee ‘erred on the side of caution’ & restricted them to 6-8,” the Florida Freedom to Read Project tweeted.

The review committee said Gorman’s “book has educational value because of its historical significance,” and “was determined to be of value for middle school students.”

The Miami-Dade County Public Schools district also clarified its action regarding Gorman’s poem in a tweet on May 23: “In order to ensure accurate information, @MDCPS is compelled to clarify that the book titled, ‘The Hill We Climb’ by @TheAmandaGorman was never banned or removed from one of our schools. The book is available in the media center as part of the middle grades collection.”

About 570 books have been banned or restricted in Florida from July 2021 to June 2022, according to PEN America, a nonprofit suing a Florida school district along with the book publisher Penguin Random House over the recent bans. 

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

Sources

Alfonseca, Kiara. “PEN America, Penguin Random House sue over banned books in Florida school district.” ABC News. 17 May 2023. 

Ax, Joseph. “Florida education board extends ban on gender identity lessons to all grades.” Reuters.com. 19 Apr 2023. 

“Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bill that Requires Curriculum Transparency.” News release. FLgov.com. 25 Mar 2022.

Human Rights Campaign staff. “Gov. DeSantis Signs Slate of Extreme Anti-LGBTQ+ Bills, Enacting a Record-Shattering Number of Discriminatory Measures Into Law.” 17 May 2023. 

“Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation to Strengthen Florida’s Position as National Leader in Higher Education.” News release. FLgov.com. 15 May 2023.

Chapell, Bill. “1 complaint led a Florida school to restrict access to Amanda Gorman’s famous poem.” NPR. Updated 25 May 2023.

Chu, Andrea. “DeSantis signed 5 education bills: Here’s what they’ll do.” WTSP. 9 May 2023. 

Florida Senate Committee on Education. “CS/HB 7— Individual Freedom.” Accessed 2 Jun 2023. 

Papaycik, Matt. “Florida’s governor signs controversial bill banning critical race theory in schools.” WPTV.com. 22 Apr 2022. 

Pilkington, Ed. “Amanda Gorman ‘gutted’ after Florida school bans Biden inauguration poem.” The Guardian. 24 May 2023.

“NAACP Issues Travel Advisory in Florida.” Press statement. NAACP. 20 May 2023. 

Associated Press (@AP). “A poem by Amanda Gorman that was written for President Joe Biden’s inauguration has been placed on a restricted list at a South Florida elementary school after one parent’s complaint.” 24 May 2023. 

Brugal, Sommer. “Miami-Dade K-8 bars elementary students from 4 library titles following parent complaint.” Miami Herald. 24 May 2023.  

DeMillo, Andrew, et al. “Presidential hopeful DeSantis inspires push to make book bans easier in Republican-controlled states.” Associated Press. 26 May 2023. 

Florida Freedom to Read Project (@FLFreedomRead). “Here are the documents we shared w/ @smbrugal of the @MiamiHerald. They restricted THE HILL WE CLIMB by @TheAmandaGorman, forward by @Oprah to grades 6-8 of the @MDCP K-8 school after a parent complained it was ‘not educational’ & contained ‘hate messages.’ Absurdity.” Twitter. 23 May 2023. 

Florida Freedom to Read Project. “About.” Accessed 2 Jun 2023. 

Florida Freedom to Read Project (@FLFreedomRead). “Below are the minutes from the review committee meeting that was held on 4/5/23. Aside from THE HILL WE CLIMB, all the books were written w/K-5 readers in mind. Due to “age appropriate” language in HB7, this committee “erred on the side of caution” & restricted them to 6-8.” Twitter. 23 May 2023. 

Miami-Dade Schools (@MDCPS). “In order to ensure accurate information, @MDCPS is compelled to clarify that the book titled, “The Hill We Climb” by @TheAmandaGorman was never banned or removed from one of our schools. The book is available in the media center as part of the middle grades collection.” Twitter. 23 May 2023.

Yang, Wesley (@wesyang). “Headline: “Amanda Gorman’s poem for Biden’s inauguration banned by Florida school” Paragraph 15-16: “one of the books…was balanced and age appropriate, and would remain available for all students…” The other four were deemed “better suited” or “more appropriate” for middle school students.”  25 May 2023. 

“PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans.” PEN America. Accessed 2 Jun 2023. 

The post A Florida School Restricted Access to Amanda Gorman’s Poem, But Didn’t ‘Ban’ It appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Officials serving in President Joe Biden’s administration have taken their oaths of office, and most can be seen in videos from their swearing-in ceremonies. But a video circulating on social media falsely suggests that they haven’t been sworn in and are “acting as elected officials without swearing an allegiance to the Constitution.”

Full Story

Members of President Joe Biden’s administration have taken their oaths of office, reciting an oath that swears an allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

The founding document specifies the exact language of the oath only for the president of the United States. But it also says that other officials — including “all executive” officers – “shall be bound” by an oath.

The oaths taken by federal officeholders are seen in recorded swearing-in ceremonies for about a dozen Biden administration officials, contrary to a claim that’s been circulating on social media.

Ann Vandersteel, a conservative commentator and conspiracy theorist whom we’ve written about before, posted on Twitter in April, “BREAKING NEWS! PUBLIC OFFICIALS DEVOID OF OATHS OF OFFICE!” That claim has now been adapted and repeated in a video circulating on Instagram.

The original claim and the adapted video both suggest that without having taken their oaths, the officials are serving illegitimately.

The video uses audio from Vandersteel’s original claim, saying, “Do we have public servants in office who are acting as elected officials without swearing an allegiance to the Constitution?”

The video has garnered comments such as, “Those who have no sworn oaths need to be sent to gitmo for treason,” and, “Clears up a lot. No oath to our constitution then they can’t violate it.”

But the video gives the wrong impression.

First, all the officials named or referenced in the video, except for Vice President Kamala Harris, aren’t elected, as the video says. They were appointed. And those whose nominations were confirmed all took their oaths of office, as seen in videos of their swearing-in ceremonies or reported in press releases and news articles.

Vandersteel’s claim is based on a document labeled “Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto” that says it was submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.

The petition claims that the named officials may not have properly recorded their oaths of office and, if so, they should be removed.

But the federal statute it cites doesn’t have any bearing on the validity of the officeholder’s appointment. Rather, the statute — 5 U.S. Code, Section 3332 — requires officeholders to file an affidavit swearing that they haven’t paid for or otherwise bought their office.

The statute says that “within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment,” the officeholder must file their affidavit. That’s the key language, said Evan Bernick, an assistant professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

“The appointment is ‘effective’ regardless whether the affidavit is filed,” Bernick said in an email to FactCheck.org. (Emphasis is his.) “There is no suggestion here that filing is a condition precedent for taking office or essential to remaining in office.”

That’s also what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found when it rejected a similar argument leveled against Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration. Starr’s authority was challenged because he didn’t file an affidavit, as required by Section 3332.

“Although Congress can impose conditions on an appointee which must be satisfied before that appointee takes office, the affidavit requirement found in 5 U.S.C. section 3332 is not such a condition precedent,” the court said. “In support of this conclusion, we need only refer to the language of section 3332. That language requires that the affidavit be filed ‘within 30 days after the effective date of [the] appointment.’… The use of the word ‘after’ expressly negates the claim that the filing of the affidavit is a condition precedent to Starr’s execution of his duties as Independent Counsel.”

So, Bernick said, “It makes about as much legal sense to say that failure to comply with the Section 3332 requirement results in lack of authority to hold office as it does to say that it results in a fine of a bajillion dollars. The statute provides for neither remedy.”

The only constitutional requirement is that they take an oath, he said, which is codified in Section 3331.

“There’s no argument that they didn’t comply with Section 3331,” Bernick said.

No case related to the petition cited by Vandersteel has been opened, according to our search of federal court records.

The officials named in the petition are:

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (who recently announced she’ll be stepping down at the end of June). Walensky was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021.

Janet Yellen, secretary of the Department of the Treasury. Yellen was sworn in on Jan. 26, 2021.

Jennifer Granholm, secretary of the Department of Energy. Granholm was sworn in on Feb. 25, 2021.

Janet Woodcock filled in as the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from January 2021 to February 2022. We found no record of her swearing-in.

Xavier Becerra, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Becerra was sworn in on March 26, 2021.

Pete Buttigieg, secretary of the Department of Transportation. Buttigieg was sworn in on Feb. 3, 2021.

Antony Blinken, secretary of state. Blinken was sworn in on Jan. 27, 2021.

Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Mayorkas was sworn in on Feb. 2, 2021.

Miguel Cardona, secretary of Department of Education. Cardona was sworn in on March 2, 2021.

Gina Raimondo, secretary of Department of Commerce. Raimondo was sworn in on March 3, 2021.

Merrick Garland, attorney general. Garland was sworn in on March 11, 2021.

Robert Califf, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Califf was sworn in on Feb. 15, 2022.

Marty Walsh, former secretary of the Department of Labor. Walsh was sworn in on March 23, 2021.

Julie Su has been nominated as the secretary of the Department of Labor, but hasn’t yet been confirmed. She is serving as acting secretary, pending her confirmation.

Lloyd Austin III, secretary of the Department of Defense. Austin was sworn in on Jan. 22, 2021.

Kamala Harris, vice president. Harris was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021.

So, we found that 14 of the 16 officials named in the petition have taken the required oath. Of the other two officials, one was serving as an interim appointee and the other has not been confirmed yet.

As to the petition’s claim that the officials have not properly recorded their oaths of office, Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania, told us: “This sounds like one of the absurd social media conspiracy theories that float around. There is definitely no requirement in the Constitution that officials have proof that they took the oath of office.”

We reached out to the two lawyers listed on the petition for comment, but haven’t heard back.

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

Sources

Jones, Brea. “Bogus ‘Sharpiegate’ Claim Resurfaces in Pennsylvania Election.” FactCheck.org. Updated 5 Dec 2022.

Bernick, Evan. Assistant professor, Northern Illinois University College of Law. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 2 Jun 2023.

Stobbe, Mike. “New CDC director takes over beleaguered agency amid crisis.” Associated Press. 20 Jan 2021.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Press release. “Janet L. Yellen Sworn In As 78th Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury.” 26 Jan 2021.

U.S. Department of Energy. Press release. “Jennifer M. Granholm Sworn in as 16th Secretary of Energy.” 25 Feb 2021.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Janet Woodcock M.D. 17 Feb 2022.

“Health and Human Services Secretary Swearing-in Ceremony.” C-SPAN. 26 Mar 2021.

“Transportation Secretary Buttigieg Swearing-in Ceremony.” C-SPAN. 3 Feb 2021.

“Swearing-In Ceremony for Secretary of State Blinken.” C-SPAN. 27 Jan 2021.

“Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas Swearing-in Ceremony.” C-SPAN. 2 Feb 2021.

“Secretary of Education Cardona Ceremonial Swearing-In.” C-SPAN. 2 Mar 2021.

“Commerce Secretary Ceremonial Swearing-In.” C-SPAN. 3 Mar 2021.

“Attorney General Swearing-In Ceremony.” C-SPAN. 11 Mar 2021.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Press release. “HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra Welcomes Robert Califf Back to HHS as FDA Commissioner.” 17 Feb 2022.

The White House (@WhiteHouse). “Vice President Harris Ceremonially Swears In Marty Walsh as Secretary of Labor.” YouTube. 23 Mar 2021.

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. Nomination of Julie Su to serve as Secretary of Labor. 20 Apr 2023.

U.S. Department of Defense. Swearing In — Lloyd J. Austin III as Secretary of Defense. 22 Jan 2021.

“Kamala Harris Sworn In As Vice President.” C-SPAN. 20 Jan 2021.

Kermit Roosevelt. Professor for the administration of justice, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania. Email to FactCheck.org. 25 May 2023.

The post Biden Officials Have Taken Oaths of Office, Contrary to Social Media Claim appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

The Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate informed county election officials that a Senate resolution essentially bars electronic voting systems in the state. The state’s Democratic secretary of state and attorney general say the resolution carries no legal weight. Nonetheless, based on the resolution, a Facebook post misleadingly claimed the state “has banned electronic voting machines.”

Full Story

False claims about election fraud in Arizona have been circulating since the 2020 election. Former President Donald Trump has made a series of false claims about fraudulent ballots and “massive … voting irregularities” in the state’s 2020 election, as we’ve written before. Those claims followed investigations and audits that confirmed Joe Biden won the state’s presidential election.

Disputes over the integrity of Arizona’s election process continue, despite a lack of evidence of widespread fraud. On May 22, a judge rejected Republican Kari Lake’s suit claiming misconduct in the 2022 gubernatorial election, which she lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs.

That same day, Arizona’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli questioned the security of the state’s voting machines in a letter sent to all 15 county boards of supervisors. Borelli told the officials that a concurrent resolution passed by the legislature earlier this year essentially bans electronic voting machines. Borelli claimed the legislature has “plenary authority” to override federal law and the governor.

Conservative commentator Tim Pool picked up on Borelli’s claim in a video posted on Facebook, quoting from the letter and falsely claiming that Arizona “has banned electronic voting machines in the 2024 election.”

But a resolution is defined in the Arizona Legislative Manual as “a declaration or expression of legislative opinion, will, intent or ‘resolve’ in matters within the Legislature’s legal purview.” It is not a law and has no legal power.

Stefanie Lindquist, a professor of law and political science at Arizona State University, told us that the definition of resolution “doesn’t matter” to Borrelli, who is relying on the theory that the U.S. Constitution gives states absolute power over how elections are run.

That theory, which Borrelli referenced in his letter to election officials, is known as the independent legislature theory. It’s a reading of the Constitution advocated by some conservative lawyers that says state legislatures have the absolute power to regulate elections, with a legislature’s authority exceeding that of the governor, the courts and the electorate, Lindquist said in a phone interview with FactCheck.org.

“What [Borrelli] is arguing is that by passing the concurrent resolution, the legislature has spoken, and under this particular theory, that’s all that’s needed,” Lindquist said.

The theory hinges on the Constitution’s elections clause, which says the “times, places, and manner” of holding elections for senators and representatives “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” Borrelli’s letter said the clause “specifically conveys electronic voting systems (manner) are not mandated in statute to be used as a primary method for counting, tabulating, or verification.”

“The letter is relying on a theory that has never been tested, and many constitutional scholars are skeptical of its validity,” Lindquist said.

State officials have dismissed Borrelli’s letter. 

In a statement issued on May 22, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said the resolution “does not have the force of law.”

Fontes, May 22: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1037, which expresses a desire to restrict the use of certain electronic voting machines, is non-binding and does not have the force of law. Election equipment must be certified by the federal and state government by specific requirements outlined in federal and state law. That certification process is being followed in Arizona and all applicable election equipment being used in Arizona is certified. If those requirements or certification process were to be changed, it would require a regular bill to be passed by the legislature and signed by the governor — which is not the case for this non-binding resolution. We defer to the Attorney General’s office on all other legal questions.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, also a Democrat, agreed with that view. The resolution “is non-binding and has no legal impact,” a Mayes spokesman told the Arizona Mirror.

Arizona House and Senate Republicans passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1037 in March, with voting along party lines. The resolution states that no electronic voting system can be used unless it meets certain criteria, including that it is made in the U.S. and has a publicly available source code.

The resolution contains language similar to Senate Bill 1074, which the state House and Senate passed and Hobbs vetoed on April 6.

“The election equipment required by this bill, as well as the problem it purports to solve, does not exist,” the governor said at the time.

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

Sources

Arizona Legislative Manual. 2003.

Arizona Senate. Senate Concurrent Resolution 1037. Accessed 31 May 2023.

Lindquist, Stefanie. Foundation professor of law and political science, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 30 May 2023.

Farley, Robert, Lori Robertson, Eugene Kiely and D’Angelo Gore. “Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims.” FactCheck.org. 20 Jul 2021

Lah, Kyung Eric Bradner. “Arizona Judge Rejects Kari Lake’s Final 2022 Election Lawsuit.” CNN. 23 May 2023.

Barchenger, Stacey. “At News Conference, Kari Lake Makes False Claims About Arizona Election Trial, Vows to Appeal Ruling.” Arizona Republic. 23 May 2023.

Arizona Secretary of State. Press release. “Statement from Secretary Fontes on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1037.” 22 May 2023.

MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod. “Citing ‘Plenary Powers,’ GOP Leader Claims a Non-binding Resolution Bans Arizona Election Machines.” Arizona Mirror. 22 May 2023.

Fifield, Jen. “Arizona Isn’t Banning Machines to Count Ballots. Why a Top Senator’s Declaration Means Nothing.” Votebeat. 23 May 2023.

Sievers, Caitlin. “Hobbs Vetoes Election, Abortion Bills.” Arizona Mirror. 6 April 2023.

LegiScan. Roll Call: AZ SCR1037. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

The post Post Misrepresents Legal Power of Arizona Resolution on Electronic Voting Machines appeared first on FactCheck.org.

SciCheck Digest

The rate of new HIV infections in the military has been relatively unchanged since 2017. But social media posts falsely claim that the military has recorded a “500% increase in HIV since the COVID vaccine rollout.” A Defense Department spokesperson said errors in a military database sparked the inaccurate claim.

Full Story

COVID-19 vaccines were introduced to the general public in December 2020. About 81% of the U.S. population have received at least one dose of a vaccine as of May 10, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

In August 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III mandated that members of the armed forces receive the vaccine. By December 2021, 96% of active-duty military members were fully vaccinated. An individual must follow mandates and pass the fitness standard in order to stay in or be allowed to join the armed forces. The vaccine mandate for members of the military was rescinded on Jan. 10.

In recent weeks, posts on social media have wrongly claimed that the military recorded a 500% increase in new HIV infections since the COVID-19 vaccines were introduced.

“DOD database reports 500% increase in HIV since the COVID vaccine rollout,” reads part of an Instagram post.

But there is “no association between COVID-19 vaccines and risk for HIV infection,” according to the CDC.

HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, attacks the body’s immune system, and if left untreated can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS.

The false claim on social media was based on incorrect data in a military medical system.

A spokesperson for the Defense Department told us in an email, “This is a false claim stemming from a rumor about the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database,” a tool used to access data on active service members within the Defense Medical Surveillance System, or DMSS.

“The Defense Health Agency’s Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division (AFSHD) conducted a complete review of the data contained in the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) and found that the data was incorrect for the years 2016-2020,” the spokesperson said. (Emphasis is the Defense Department’s.) 

“Comparing the DMED database to the source data contained in DMSS, AFHSD discovered that the total number of medical diagnoses from 2016-2020 that were accessible in DMED represented only a small fraction of actual medical diagnoses for those years. In contrast, the 2021 total number of medical diagnoses were up to date in DMED. Comparison of 2021 to 2016-2020 resulted in the appearance of significant increased occurrence of all medical diagnoses in 2021 because of the under reported data for 2016-2020.”

“AFHSD has corrected the root-cause of the data corruption and it has been restored to full functionality,” the spokesperson said.

HIV is one of 434 medical conditions that can cause an individual to be disqualified from joining the military. “While DOD policy prohibits the accession of any applicant who tests positive for HIV, current service members who become infected may continue to serve,” according to a March report by the Congressional Research Service.

From January 2017 to June 2022, 1,581 service members were diagnosed with HIV, according to “HIV/AIDS in the Military,” a report published in March by the Congressional Research Service.

“As of 2022, 981 (62%) remain in military service,” the Defense Department spokesperson said. 

The amount of new HIV cases has fluctuated in recent years. There were 280 in 2018, 314 in 2019, 237 in 2020, 309 in 2021, and 124 in 2022, according to data provided by the spokesperson.

The largest annual increase was 30.4% in 2021 and the largest decrease was 60% in 2022 – nothing as large as the 500% increase cited in the social media posts.

The CRS report also notes, “The rate of newly diagnosed HIV infections (also called the seroprevalence rate) among service members tested in 2021 was 23 per 100,000.” That was the same rate as in 2017 — before COVID-19 vaccines were introduced. 

This isn’t the first time that the military database has been the source of false social media claims.

Reuters Fact Check last year debunked social media posts that listed HIV and numerous other “medical conditions that purportedly ‘skyrocketed’ among U.S. military personnel in 2021.” But those increases were all due to the same error in the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database for the years 2016 through 2020.

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

Sources

“Almost All Active Duty Service Members Receive Vaccines.” Department of Defense. 16 Dec 2021. 

“COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 May 2023.

“DOD Rescinds COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate.” Department of Defense. 10 Jan 2023. 

“Defense Medical Epidemiology Database.” Health.mil. Accessed 30 May 2023.

“Fact Check-DoD says data error caused spike in numbers of medical diagnoses in their medical database for 2021.” Reuters. 23 Feb 2023.

“HIV/AIDS in the Military.” Congressional Research Service. 31 May 2019.

“HIV/AIDS in the Military.” Congressional Research Service. 21 March 2023.

 McDonald, Jessica. “Q&A on COVID-19 Vaccines.” FactCheck.org. Updated 26 Sept 2022. 

Spokesperson, Department of Defense. Email to Factcheck.org. 31 May 2023.

The post Database Errors Fuel False Claims about HIV Cases in Military appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

CNN was criticized by some for hosting a town hall with Donald Trump and a live audience that expressed strong support for the former president. Online posts now wrongly claim CNN will have “no more live audiences at town halls.” CNN said the claim is “fabricated” and plans a live audience at a town hall with Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley in June.

Full Story 

CNN hosted a live town hall with former President Donald Trump in New Hampshire on May 10, the cable network’s first televised town hall for a 2024 presidential candidate.  

Critics of the town hall say CNN allowed Trump to make too many false and misleading claims without enough correction. CNN also faced backlash for how the audience behaved during the broadcast. 

The audience — made up of Republicans and undeclared voters expected to vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary — gave Trump a standing ovation when he appeared on stage and cheered during his repetition of false claims. 

Following the backlash, social media posts began to spread the false claim that CNN said it won’t have live audiences at future town halls.

“CNN just announced there will be no more live audiences at town halls. So how is it a town hall with no audience? Trump broke CNN,” said a tweet shared on May 11. 

“CNN announces there will be no more live audiences at their town halls….so I guess they decided that they can’t have their sheep cheering for what Trump says, and also, isn’t a live audience the definition of a town hall,” a post on Facebook said.

“CNN announces today there will be no more live audiences at town halls. The [orange emoji] Man broke CNN,” said another Facebook post. 

But the claim is not true.

Responding to the social media posts, CNN spokesperson Sydney Baldwin told USA Today, “This is completely fabricated.”

CNN has announced it will host the next town hall in front of a live audience in Iowa on June 4 with former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is also seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. 

The audience will be made up of “Iowa Republicans and Iowa voters, who say they will pre-register to participate in the Republican caucuses by the deadline set by the Republican Party of Iowa; and pledge to appear in person at the caucuses,” according to CNN.  

At a CNN meeting on May 11, the station’s CEO, Chris Licht, said that he stands by the decision to have Trump’s town hall in front of a crowd that favored the former president, the Association Press reported.

“While we all may have been uncomfortable hearing people clapping, that was also an important part of the story, because the people in that audience represent a large swath of America,” Licht said.

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

Sources

“READ: Transcript of CNN’s town hall with former President Donald Trump.” CNN. 11 May 2023. 

“CNN Republican Town Hall with Donald Trump.” CNN Audio. 11 May 2023. 

Bauder, David and Alexandra Olson. “CNN’s town hall quickly turned chaotic, displaying the tightrope facing journalists covering Trump.” Associated Press. 11 May 2023.  

Farley, Robert, et al. “FactChecking Trump’s CNN Town Hall.” FactCheck.org. 11 May 2023. 

Darcy, Oliver. “Analysis: CNN faces harsh criticism after Trump unleashed a firehose of lies during its live town hall.” CNN. 11 May 2023. 

“CNN to Host Republican Presidential Town Hall with former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.” CNN. 24 May 2023. 

Frank, BrieAnna. “No audience change announced for CNN town halls after Trump event | Fact check.” USA Today. 17 May 2023.

The post CNN Says Future Town Halls Will Include Live Audiences, Contrary to Online Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

An Oregon bill that would eliminate parental consent for minors to access reproductive health care, including abortion, has been criticized by conservatives. But a liberal social media post mischaracterizes their opposition by claiming Republicans said girls “should be allowed to be forced to give birth to their rapist’s baby if the rapist is their father.”

Full Story

Oregon Democrats have proposed legislation aimed at removing barriers to abortion and gender-affirming care, while Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the measure, saying it goes too far.

Social media posts from each side have focused on the bill’s proposed change to abortion access laws — in particular, parental consent requirements for some minors.

Current state law is a little unclear about the rules for parental consent for those under 15, but experts generally agree that those older than 15 can seek an abortion without consent from their parents and those younger than 15 cannot.

The law says that a medical provider can give “birth control information and services to any person without regard to the age of the person” and then, in the next paragraph, specifies that only those 15 and older can decide on medical treatment without the consent of a parent.

“Current law is that if someone is under 15, she’ll need to get consent from a parent to get an abortion in Oregon. If she’s 16 or 17, she doesn’t need parental consent to get an abortion in Oregon,” Anna Sortun, an Oregon lawyer who is contributing to a reproductive rights hotline run by the state’s attorney general, said in an email to FactCheck.org.

Similarly, the state Supreme Court wrote in a non-binding 2006 opinion that the current law “authorizes a minor female 15 years of age or older to consent to the performance of an abortion by a physician without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian. A parent or guardian still must consent to the performance of an abortion for a minor female 14 years of age or younger.”

The proposed change — which has passed the Democrat-led House and is now awaiting a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate — would definitively establish that people of any age could seek out reproductive health care, including abortion, without parental consent.

Under this bill, “a minor of any age can make that determination,” Lori Anne Sills, of the nonpartisan legislative counsel’s office, explained at an April 13 meeting of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, which is made up of members from both chambers.

At that meeting, Republican state Sen. Tim Knopp asked Sills, “a 10-year-old could make that decision on their own, then?”

“Yes,” Sills said. “Let me clarify… under the House Bill 2002, a minor of any age can make reproductive health care decisions and that includes undergoing an abortion.”

“Alright, well, that’s just shocking,” Knopp said.

Knopp, the Senate Republican leader, released a joint statement with the Republican leader of the House later that day highlighting that point, saying, “10-year-olds would be able to get abortions without parental knowledge under the legislation.”

The official Twitter account for the Oregon House Republicans then emphasized that part of the bill on May 1, calling the measure “too extreme.”

But a popular liberal Twitter account run by Brian Tyler Cohen later misleadingly claimed on May 2: “Oregon Republicans are arguing that 10-year-old girls should be allowed to be forced to give birth to their rapist’s baby if the rapist is their father.”

But none of the Republicans had suggested that a 10-year-old should be forced to give birth. Rather, they argued that parents should be involved in medical decision-making for minors.

For example, the conservative-leaning organization Oregon Right to Life, which opposes the bill, submitted written testimony that said, in part, “Although we can agree that not every parent is a good parent (such as in cases of abuse), we recognize that parental involvement is wise in every other major decision in a child’s life. Removing parental involvement prior to making a life-changing decision significantly changes how minors consent to abortions. Parents should be empowered to help and support their children during a vulnerable and confusing time, not removed from the equation.”

Addressing Parental Permission

During the April 13 committee meeting, Democratic state Sen. Elizabeth Steiner — who is a doctor and a sponsor of the bill — responded to criticism that the change would cut out parents from major health decisions.

“While I firmly believe that every person in this room would have compassion on their 14-year-old child and want to engage with them on this conversation in a loving and caring way,” she said, “I can tell you from deep personal experience that, unfortunately, not every parent is like that.”

In most cases, though, a physician would encourage parental involvement, Steiner said.

“There is no desire to separate children from their parents in this,” she said.

The Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force — which is a statewide non-profit that works to prevent and respond to sexual violence and is not part of the Department of Justice, as is suggested by the name — favors the legislation.

“If we want survivors of abuse and violence to have access to meaningful support services, we need to support reproductive health care,” the organization’s interim executive director, Bethany Walmsley, wrote in testimony submitted in support of the bill. “If we want to prevent abuse and violence from happening in the first place, we need to ensure people have access to health services without barriers.”

It’s rare for those under 15 to seek abortion, regardless of whether or not they are required to have parental permission.

In 2021, there were 14 abortions performed on patients younger than 15 in the state, according to the Oregon Health Authority. In the year before, there were 20 abortions.

That accounts for 0.3% of the state’s abortions in 2021, which is on par with the rates for that age group in other states regardless of parental consent laws, according to national data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parental consent laws vary by state, with some requiring consent from one parent, a grandparent or other adult relative. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 36 states require parental consent and/or notification or the involvement of a family member, although a minor can obtain court approval for an abortion in all but one of those states.

We don’t know how many 10-year-olds would likely be affected since there is no data available for that age group and the bill’s primary sponsors didn’t answer our email seeking clarification. But few would likely be affected given the relatively low number of abortions and the similarly low number of births among those under 15. (There were 11 births in that age group in Oregon in 2021 and 10 in 2020.)

Hannah Kurowski, spokeswoman for the Oregon House Majority Office, which is Democratic, told us, “No minor in Oregon is ever alone in making these decisions.”

“Medical providers, who are trained to screen for abuse and protect the health and wellbeing of their patients, will always work with minor patients to ensure they have a network of safe adults to support them, especially when they are making significant medical decisions,” she said. “This bill does not change that.” (Emphasis is Kurowski’s.)

So, the focus among Republicans on the effect of the bill for that young age exaggerates its impact.

But the response from the liberal Twitter account mischaracterizes the point Republican opponents were making.

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

Sources

Oregon Legislative Information. HB 2002 B. Accessed 8 May 2023.

Oregon Revised Statutes. ORS 109.640. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Sortun, Anna. Partner, Tonkon Torp. Email to FactCheck.org. 12 May 2023.

Oregon State Legislature. Joint Committee On Ways and Means. 13 Apr 2023.

Knopp, Tim and Vikki Breese-Iverson. Press release. “Oregon Democrats Pass Most Extreme Abortion and Gender-Altering Bill in Nation’s History Out of Committee.” 13 Apr 2023.

Anderson, Lois. Oregon Right to Life. Public testimony. 20 Mar 2023.

Oregon Health Authority. Induced Termination of Pregnancy in Oregon, 2015-2021. Accessed 8 May 2023.

Kortsmit, Katherine, et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 25 Nov 2022.

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Annual Trends in Birth & Pregnancy 2010-2021. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Kurowski, Hannah. Spokeswoman, Oregon House Majority Office. Email to FactCheck.org. 10 May 2023.

The post Post Mischaracterizes GOP Opposition to Oregon Bill on Reproductive Health Care for Minors appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Oil is formed in a process that takes millions of years, and there is a finite amount on the planet, scientists say. But a TikTok video shared on Instagram falsely claims that there is an “unlimited” supply of oil, and people are being “taught” otherwise to keep them “in a fear state.”

Full Story

Oil is a finite resource that takes millions of years to form, according to scientists, and it can’t be replenished at anywhere near the rate at which it is being used.

“There is a finite amount of oil in the world,” Andrew Kleit, professor of energy and environmental economics at Pennsylvania State University, told us in a phone interview.

“Oil is created through a geologic process that takes millions of years,” he said. “Any new oil that’s created is created very slowly, whereas we consume it fairly rapidly” in comparison, he added.

“The scarcity value of oil is reflected in the market price,” Kleit said.

Oil companies, including BP and Shell, are studying how to produce alternative fuels. They are addressing concerns that burning fossil fuels harm the environment, and they know that once the oil that exists runs out, there will be no way to replace it.

Yet, a TikTok video shared April 30 and May 1 on Instagram falsely claims there’s an endless supply of oil available on the Earth.

“There is an unlimited amount of oil,” the video says. It also misleadingly claims water is unlimited, too.

The claims on the video, which has received more than 10,000 likes, are similar to false claims made on a 2021 Facebook video that said John D. Rockefeller coined the term “fossil fuel” to “induce the idea of scarcity” and drive up oil prices.

The TikTok video also references Rockefeller. “When the Rockefellers bought out the educational system, they taught us a scarcity mindset to put us into a fear state,” says the video, posted by a TikTok account called Cultivate Elevate, which sells health-related products on its website.

The video also says workers on oil rigs have described being sent back to wells that had “supposedly” gone dry and then finding oil in them.

Crude oil and petroleum are known as fossil fuels because they were formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals into a hydrocarbon mixture.

“Oil, like natural gas and coal, is a fuel that was literally made from fossils, the dead remains of once-living things that have been slowly, through a combination of pressure and temperature, been converted into solid [coal], liquid [oil], and gas,” Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in an email on May 9.

Mann noted that renowned scientist Carl Sagan referred to oil’s origin in pointing out the “absurdity” of our dependence on fossil fuels: “Our civilization runs by burning the remains of humble creatures who inhabited the Earth hundreds of millions of years before the first humans came on the scene,” Sagan said. “Like some ghastly cannibal cult, we subsist on the dead bodies of our ancestors and distant relatives.”

The video’s claim that oil is unlimited is “silly,” Mann said.

“Crude oil is the result of geological processes beneath Earth’s surface that play out over hundreds of millions of years,” he said. “We’re extracting it over a time frame of decades, more than a million times as fast as nature could in principle replace it.”

Addressing the video’s claim that oil workers were called back to rigs previously deemed dry, Mann said: “Which is more likely, that oil is magically being generated a million times faster than known geological processes can generate it? Or that some workers on oil rigs missed a spot the first time they searched it?”

Climate change, Mann said, provides a “compelling argument” against finding new ways of extracting fossil fuel, further decreasing the supply of oil.

As we’ve written before, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, largely caused by human activity, including the burning of oil, gas and coal. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed how nations around the world are working to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels in its April 2022 report.

The video’s claim that water is unlimited is likewise wrong, Mann said. While there is a large amount of water on the planet, most of it is salt water in the oceans — and desalination is an expensive, energy-intensive process that isn’t practical, he said. Fresh water is similarly “tied up” in glaciers, leaving only about 1% of total water accessible for human use, Mann said.

Water is already in limited supply. In a 2022 report, the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, estimated that “3.6 billion people face inadequate access to water at least a month per year” — a figure that is expected to rise to “more than 5 billion by 2050.”

“Human beings require fresh water,” said Penn State’s Kleit. “And in many parts of the world, including the Western United States, fresh water is very scarce.”

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

Sources

National Geographic. “Petroleum.” Accessed 11 May 2023.

Miller, Richard G. and Steven R. Sorrell. “The Future of Oil Supply.” National Library of Medicine. 13 Jan 2014.

Andrew Kleit. Professor of energy and environmental economics, Pennsylvania State University. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 11 May 2023.

Clifford, Catherine. “BP Says Demand for Oil and Gas Will Drop Dramatically by 2050 in ‘Decisive Shift.’” CNBC. 30 Jan 2023.

Bousso, Ron and Shadia Nasralla. “With Oil Past Peak, Shell Sharpens 2050 Zero Emissions Goal.” Reuters. 11 Feb 2021.

Thelin, John and Richard W. Trollinger. “Effective Altruism Isn’t as Newfangled as It Seems.” Washington Post. 6 Feb 2023.

Energy Information Administration. “Oil and Petroleum Products Explained.” Accessed 10 May 2023.

Kelety, Josh. “Video Spreads False Notion of Unlimited Oil Supply.” Associated Press. 3 May 2023.

Petersen, Kate. “Fact check: False claim Earth can produce infinite supply of clean water.” USA Today. 31 Oct 2022.

Reuters Fact Check. “Fact Check-The Term ‘Fossil Fuel’ Was Not Coined by John D. Rockefeller to Trick People Into Thinking Oil is a Scarce Commodity.” 24 Sep 2001.

Michael E Mann. Director, Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, University of Pennsylvania. Email to FactCheck.org. 9 May 2023.

Keefe, Eliza. “‘Unequivocal’ Evidence that Humans Cause Climate Change, Contrary to Posts of Old Video.” FactCheck.org. 2 Aug 2022.

Fichera, Angelo. “No, Climate Change Isn’t ‘Made Up.'” FactCheck.org. 8 May 2019.

McGrath, Matt. “Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Emissions From Electricity Set to Fall – Report.” BBC. 12 Apr 2023.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” Accessed 15 May 2023.

Brittanica.com. “World Distribution of Oil.” Accessed 12 May 2023.

World Meteorolgical Organization. “State of Global Water Resources report informs on rivers, land water storage and glaciers.” 29 Nov 2022.

The post Viral Video Makes False Claim About Global Oil Supply appeared first on FactCheck.org.