In recent discussions surrounding the integrity of the American judicial system, Senator Eric Schmitt has raised alarming concerns about the perceived corruption within key institutions like the FBI and the Department of Justice. Drawing from his experience as Missouri’s attorney general, Schmitt underscores the idea that politicized judges represent a formidable challenge to the very fabric of American democracy. In an engaging exchange with Tucker Carlson, Schmitt articulated his stance on how such judicial bias could undermine public trust and governance. This blog post will delve into the claims made during this conversation, fact-checking the assertions and providing a nuanced analysis of the broader implications of these allegations on our democratic institutions. Join us as we sort through the rhetoric and explore the facts behind this critical discourse.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 08/15/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

The Biden administration started to hammer down on censorship on the third day in office.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Biden administration started to "hammer down on censorship on the third day in office" is **not supported by available evidence**. Instead, the record shows that early in his term, President Biden revoked a Trump-era executive order that sought to limit online censorship by social media platforms, effectively removing some restrictions on content moderation[5].

Key points from the search results:

– On January 20, 2021 (Biden’s first day in office), Biden issued Executive Order 13985 focused on advancing racial equity and inclusion in federal government programs, which some critics characterize as promoting certain ideological policies rather than restricting censorship[4].

– The Trump administration had issued an executive order aimed at "restoring freedom of speech" by prohibiting federal officers from using resources to abridge free speech and directing investigations into censorship during the Biden administration[1]. This order was revoked by Biden early in his term.

– Legal challenges related to government influence on social media content moderation during the Biden administration have been ongoing, with courts generally siding with the Biden administration’s position that government communications with social media companies do not constitute unconstitutional censorship[2].

– Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed numerous lawsuits against the Biden administration, including one just two days into Biden’s term challenging immigration policies, but these lawsuits reflect opposition to Biden’s policies rather than evidence that Biden himself was cracking down on censorship[3].

In summary, the Biden administration did not initiate a crackdown on censorship immediately upon taking office; rather, it reversed prior Trump administration policies aimed at limiting social media content moderation. The claim appears to confuse or invert the timeline and nature of governmental actions related to censorship and free speech. The available evidence indicates that Biden’s early actions were more aligned with expanding government equity programs and removing Trump-era restrictions on online speech regulation[4][5].

Citations

Claim

Hillary Clinton was involved in a conspiracy related to Trump and Russia to deflect from her email scandal.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Hillary Clinton was involved in a conspiracy related to Trump and Russia to deflect from her email scandal is not supported by credible evidence. Investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including the Mueller Report and the Department of Justice Special Counsel investigation, found that Russia conducted operations to help Donald Trump’s campaign and harm Hillary Clinton’s, but did not establish that Clinton or her campaign conspired with Russia[2].

The narrative that Clinton and Democrats colluded with Russia to frame Trump is part of a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and his allies to delegitimize the Russia investigations. This counter-narrative, often called the "Russia hoax" theory, lacks factual basis and has been debunked by multiple official reports and bipartisan investigations[5].

Recent claims by some political figures, such as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in 2025, allege that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence to undermine Trump, but these claims have been widely challenged as misleading and politically motivated[1][4]. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released a report in 2025 describing the Russia collusion narrative as a "hoax" manufactured by rogue intelligence personnel, but this report is itself highly partisan and contested[3].

In summary, the mainstream and authoritative investigations conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and harm Clinton, but there is no verified evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in a conspiracy with Russia to deflect from her email scandal. The claim is part of a politically charged conspiracy theory without substantiated proof[2][5].

Citations

Claim

The average age of the Senate is 67.5 years old.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the average age of U.S. senators is 67.5 years old is **not accurate** based on the most recent data. The average age of senators in the 119th Congress (2025) is approximately **64 years old**, with some sources reporting a median age around 64.7 years and others citing an average of 64 years[1][2][3].

Key points from the data:

– Pew Research Center reports the median age of the Senate as 64.7 years in 2025, down slightly from 65.3 years in the previous Congress[1].
– Statista and Quorum both indicate the average age of senators is about 64 years in 2025[2][3].
– The average age has been relatively stable around the mid-60s, not reaching as high as 67.5 years[3][5].
– The Senate is older on average than the House of Representatives, whose average age is closer to 57 years[1][5].

Therefore, the average age of 67.5 years is an overestimate compared to current legislative demographic statistics. The most reliable and recent sources consistently place the average age of U.S. senators in the mid-60s range.

Citations

Claim

The Supreme Court said Joe Biden and the Secretary of Education didn't have any authority to wipe away a half a trillion dollars worth of debt.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that President Joe Biden and the Secretary of Education **did not have the authority** under the HEROES Act to unilaterally cancel up to $400 billion in student loan debt, striking down the administration's student loan forgiveness program as an overreach of executive power[1][2][5].

Key details include:

– The case, *Biden v. Nebraska*, was decided 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion.
– The Court held that the HEROES Act, which the administration cited as authority to forgive debt due to the COVID-19 emergency, did **not** grant the Secretary of Education power to enact such sweeping debt cancellation.
– The Court emphasized the "economic and political significance" of erasing hundreds of billions in debt, stating such a major policy change requires explicit Congressional authorization[1][2].
– The ruling blocked the Biden administration’s plan to forgive debt for about 43 million borrowers, nearly half of whom would have had all their loans forgiven.
– The decision was prompted by lawsuits from six Republican-led states challenging the legality of the forgiveness plan.
– Following the Supreme Court ruling, lower courts and appellate courts have continued to block or limit subsequent Biden administration efforts to provide student debt relief through executive action[3][4].

Thus, the claim that the Supreme Court said Biden and the Secretary of Education lacked authority to wipe away a half a trillion dollars in student debt is **accurate** and grounded in the 2023 Supreme Court decision[1][2][5].

Citations

Claim

Congress has abdicated its responsibility to a lot of these administrative agencies over the decades.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Congress has abdicated its responsibility to many administrative agencies over the decades** is supported by historical and scholarly analysis showing a significant shift in power from Congress to the executive branch and administrative agencies.

Key points supporting this claim include:

– Over the 20th century, Congress increasingly delegated broad regulatory authority to administrative agencies, effectively allowing these agencies to make many policy decisions that traditionally would have been legislative functions. This delegation is often justified by the complexity of modern governance, which Congress alone cannot manage in detail[5].

– Since the post-World War II era, Congress designed itself to oversee regulatory agencies through committees, but since the 1980s, power within Congress has centralized in party leadership, weakening its capacity to supervise administrative actions effectively. This has led to diminished congressional oversight and increased executive influence over agencies[2].

– The rise of presidential administration, especially since the Reagan era, has further shifted control over administrative agencies to the executive branch. Reagan’s executive orders and legal interpretations expanded presidential authority over agency rulemaking, often bypassing traditional legislative checks[3].

– Congress has attempted some pushback through laws like the Administrative Procedure Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, aiming to regain some control over agencies. However, these measures have not fully restored congressional authority, and the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) now plays a central role in regulatory review, consolidating executive oversight[1][4].

– Judicial rulings have also facilitated this shift by upholding broad delegations of legislative power to agencies, effectively allowing Congress to "abdicate" detailed policymaking while maintaining constitutional legitimacy for the administrative state[5].

In summary, the historical evolution of the U.S. administrative state shows a clear trend where **Congress has delegated significant policymaking authority to administrative agencies and the executive branch, reducing its direct control and oversight**, which aligns with the claim of abdication of responsibility over decades[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

There are systemic issues within the FBI regarding accountability for censorship actions.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there are systemic issues within the FBI regarding accountability for censorship actions is partially supported by available information, but the evidence is nuanced and complex.

There is documented concern about government involvement in censorship and coordination with social media platforms, including the FBI's role in content moderation decisions. For example, a 2023 House Oversight Committee hearing revealed that Twitter coordinated extensively with the FBI to monitor and censor certain political content, including the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. This coordination disproportionately targeted conservative voices, raising questions about government influence over speech on private platforms[3]. However, despite extensive investigations and testimony, some congressional committees have found no conclusive evidence to fully substantiate claims of systemic censorship by federal agencies, and have withheld certain transcripts, which critics argue undermines transparency[4].

Regarding accountability within the FBI itself, recent legislative efforts indicate recognized gaps in protections for FBI employees who expose wrongdoing. The FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2025 aims to close these gaps by granting FBI employees legal protections comparable to other federal civil servants, addressing longstanding vulnerabilities to retaliation when reporting waste, fraud, or abuse[2]. This suggests systemic issues in internal accountability mechanisms have existed but are being addressed legislatively.

Broader political and legal contexts also reflect tensions over censorship and free speech. Initiatives like Project 2025 propose using the Justice Department to target perceived political enemies and to challenge content moderation practices, which critics argue could suppress legitimate efforts to combat misinformation and election falsehoods[1][5]. These developments underscore ongoing debates about the balance between government authority, platform moderation, and constitutional rights.

In summary, while direct evidence of systemic FBI censorship accountability failures is limited, there is credible documentation of FBI involvement in government-coordinated content moderation and recognized gaps in whistleblower protections within the FBI. Legislative and political efforts are underway to address these issues, reflecting broader systemic challenges in federal oversight and accountability related to censorship actions[2][3][4].

Citations

Claim

The Biden administration was involved in a concerted effort to silence dissent regarding various social topics.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Biden administration was involved in a concerted effort to silence dissent regarding various social topics is supported by multiple legal actions and allegations, particularly concerning coordination with social media companies to suppress certain speech. Specifically, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed a lawsuit alleging that top federal officials in the Biden administration coerced social media platforms to censor or downgrade posts, primarily targeting conservative speech, which a federal judge described as "the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history"[1][4]. This lawsuit led to a preliminary injunction blocking such government actions, though the Biden administration appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2024 to determine if these actions violated First Amendment rights[4].

Further, the Biden administration has been accused of pressuring social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation, which critics argue infringed on constitutionally protected speech rights and advanced the government’s preferred narratives on public debate topics[2][3]. However, some analyses note that government efforts to influence content moderation ("jawboning") have occurred across multiple administrations, not solely under Biden, and that investigations limited to this administration may reflect political motivations rather than a comprehensive inquiry[2].

In addition to social media-related issues, there are claims that the Biden administration’s policies and actions have chilled free speech in other contexts, such as parental rights advocacy and debates over educational policies related to gender identity and public health mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Attorney General Garland’s memorandum mobilizing federal law enforcement to address protests at schools was criticized for broadly chilling parental speech and advocacy, and subsequent Title IX policy changes have been challenged as coercive toward dissenting views on gender identity[5].

The speaker referenced in the summary reflects a perspective aligned with these concerns, emphasizing legal challenges against the Biden administration’s policies as necessary to uphold constitutional rights and protect free speech, especially in the face of what they perceive as radical shifts in political power and policy direction.

In summary, there is documented legal and political contention over the Biden administration’s role in efforts perceived as suppressing dissenting speech, particularly through coordination with social media platforms and certain federal policies. These issues remain subject to ongoing legal review and political debate, with significant implications for First Amendment rights in the United States[1][4][5].

Citations

Claim

In 2014, the United States said it would not participate in gain of function research anymore.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The United States government did impose a **moratorium on gain-of-function (GoF) research funding from 2014 to 2017**, specifically targeting research involving certain pathogens with pandemic potential such as influenza, MERS, and SARS. This moratorium was a temporary pause initiated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Health and Human Services in response to laboratory biosecurity incidents in 2014, although those incidents were not directly related to gain-of-function research itself[1].

During this moratorium, any laboratory conducting such research risked losing future funding, and the government undertook a review and overhaul of regulatory and safety procedures related to GoF research. The pause was intended to reduce handling of dangerous pathogens until safety protocols were improved. After expert panels and advisory boards evaluated the risks and benefits, the moratorium was lifted in December 2017 because gain-of-function research was considered important for understanding and countering rapidly evolving pathogens[1].

Thus, the claim that "in 2014, the United States said it would not participate in gain of function research anymore" is **not entirely accurate**. It was not a permanent ban or complete cessation but a **temporary moratorium on funding and conducting certain types of gain-of-function research from 2014 to 2017**, followed by a resumption under stricter oversight and guidelines[1][3].

Additional context includes ongoing debates and legislative actions at state levels (e.g., Texas in 2023) reflecting continued concerns about gain-of-function research and its biosecurity risks[2]. More recent government actions and policies may continue to evolve, but the formal 2014 action was a temporary moratorium rather than a permanent withdrawal from gain-of-function research.

In summary:

– **2014–2017:** U.S. government imposed a moratorium on funding certain gain-of-function research.
– **Reason:** Safety concerns and biosecurity incidents prompted review and regulatory overhaul.
– **2017:** Moratorium lifted with new guidelines to manage risks.
– **No permanent ban** was declared in 2014; rather, a temporary pause with subsequent resumption under oversight[1][3].

Citations

Claim

U.S. tax dollars were used to help create the virus that killed millions of people.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that U.S. tax dollars were used to help create the virus that killed millions of people (COVID-19) relates to allegations about U.S. funding of gain-of-function research linked to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Investigations have found that U.S. taxpayer money, via grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was provided to EcoHealth Alliance, which collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on research involving coronaviruses, including gain-of-function studies. This research is considered by some to have potentially contributed to the virus's emergence, though definitive proof of direct creation or intentional release is lacking.

Key points:

– The NIH funded extensive COVID-19 research, including basic science, clinical, and public health studies, with millions of dollars allocated in 2020 and beyond[1][5].

– EcoHealth Alliance, led by Dr. Peter Daszak, received NIH grants to conduct coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Evidence from a U.S. House Select Subcommittee report indicates EcoHealth violated NIH grant terms, leading to suspension of funding and a Department of Justice investigation[3].

– The Select Subcommittee report highlights that gain-of-function research, which can enhance virus transmissibility or virulence, was likely involved in the origin of COVID-19. Oversight mechanisms for such research were found to be incomplete and inadequate[3].

– While U.S. funding supported research that included gain-of-function experiments, there is no conclusive evidence that U.S. tax dollars directly funded the creation of SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon or intentionally engineered virus. The predominant scientific consensus supports a natural origin or lab incident scenario without malicious intent.

– U.S. federal agencies, including NIH and NSF, have also funded broad COVID-19 research efforts aimed at understanding, diagnosing, and combating the virus, not creating it[1][2][4].

In summary, U.S. taxpayer funds were used to support coronavirus research, including gain-of-function studies in Wuhan, which some investigations suggest may have contributed to the virus's emergence. However, the claim that U.S. tax dollars were used to *create* the virus that killed millions is not conclusively proven and remains a subject of ongoing investigation and debate[3].

Citations

Claim

Fauci sent his chief deputy to China to see what they were doing regarding COVID.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Anthony Fauci sent his chief deputy to China to see what they were doing regarding COVID-19 is not directly supported by available public records or credible news reports. While Fauci was informed early on about the research on novel coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and had detailed knowledge of the situation in China, there is no verified evidence that he dispatched his chief deputy to China specifically to investigate their COVID-19 response[1].

Contextually, Fauci was engaged in scientific and public health communications about the virus and maintained contact with Chinese counterparts and other experts. For example, Fauci made calls to respected scientists in China to clarify important questions about asymptomatic transmission of the virus[4]. However, this does not equate to sending a chief deputy on an official investigative mission to China.

In summary, Fauci had early and detailed awareness of coronavirus research in Wuhan and communicated with Chinese scientists, but there is no substantiated record that he sent his chief deputy to China to observe their COVID-19 activities. This claim appears to be unverified or inaccurate based on current public information.

Citations

Claim

The World Health Organization is 'bought and paid for by the communists in China.'

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the World Health Organization (WHO) is "bought and paid for by the communists in China" is an oversimplification and not supported by the full context of WHO funding and influence. While China has increased its financial contributions and influence within the WHO, it is not the sole or dominant funder, nor does this equate to the WHO being controlled by China.

Key points relevant to this claim:

– **China's funding role:** China pledged an additional USD 500 million to the WHO over five years starting in 2025, making it the largest state funder, replacing the U.S. in that role after the U.S. withdrawal under Trump[1][3]. However, this funding is part of a broader mix of contributions from many member states and private donors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the largest overall donor[1].

– **U.S. contributions:** The U.S. has historically been the largest single contributor to the WHO, providing over $1 billion in voluntary contributions in 2022-23 and assessed contributions totaling $219 million, nearly twice what China pays[4]. The U.S. briefly withdrew from the WHO under Trump but rejoined under Biden[4].

– **Influence and criticism:** Critics, including some U.S. politicians, have accused the WHO of being influenced by China, especially regarding the early handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged cover-ups by China[5]. For example, Congressman Vern Buchanan called the WHO "China’s puppet" due to its praise of China's transparency and handling of the virus, which many experts and intelligence agencies have disputed[5]. However, these criticisms focus on political and operational decisions rather than direct financial control.

– **WHO's governance:** The WHO is a member-state organization governed by its 194 member countries, with decisions made collectively. While funding affects influence, no credible evidence shows China "owns" or fully controls the WHO. The organization also collaborates with many countries and foundations worldwide[2].

In summary, while China is a significant and growing funder of the WHO and has strategic interests in influencing global health policies (such as promoting traditional Chinese medicine), the claim that the WHO is "bought and paid for" by China exaggerates the situation. The WHO remains a multilateral organization with diverse funding sources and member governance, though it faces legitimate scrutiny over its handling of the pandemic and political pressures from various countries[1][4][5].

Citations

Claim

Missouri has a judgment against China for 24 billion related to the pandemic.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Missouri has a $24 billion judgment against China related to the COVID-19 pandemic is **true**. In March 2025, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey secured a historic $24 billion default judgment against the Chinese Communist Party for causing and exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic[1][2][4]. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, accused China of hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and misrepresenting information about the virus, which led to significant economic harm and increased costs for Missouri[2]. China did not appear in court, resulting in a default judgment in favor of Missouri[2][3].

The court found sufficient evidence that China's actions caused damage to Missouri, including increased PPE costs and lost tax revenue, and ruled that Missouri is entitled to $24 billion in damages[1][2]. Attorney General Bailey has stated intentions to collect the judgment by seizing Chinese-owned assets in Missouri, including farmland, and may work with federal authorities to enforce the ruling[1][2].

This judgment is one of the largest in Missouri's history and represents a significant legal action holding China accountable for its role in the pandemic's impact on Missouri[1][4]. However, enforcement and collection of the judgment remain uncertain due to China's refusal to participate in the case[2].

In summary, Missouri indeed won a $24 billion judgment against China related to the COVID-19 pandemic, based on a federal court ruling following a lawsuit alleging China's misconduct during the pandemic[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

Dr. Li, who alerted about the virus, had to recant his message and mysteriously died shortly after.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Dr. Li Wenliang, who alerted about the virus, had to recant his message and mysteriously died shortly after is partially accurate but requires clarification. Dr. Li Wenliang was a Chinese ophthalmologist who warned colleagues about early COVID-19 infections in Wuhan in late December 2019. He was reprimanded by Wuhan police for "making false comments" and was forced to sign a statement recanting his warning, effectively silencing him[1][3].

Dr. Li later contracted COVID-19 from a patient and died from the disease on February 7, 2020, at age 34. His death was due to the virus itself, not mysterious circumstances. The Chinese Supreme Court later exonerated him, and the Wuhan police formally apologized to his family[1][2]. There is no credible evidence supporting a mysterious or suspicious cause of death beyond his illness.

In summary:

– Dr. Li warned about the virus early on and was reprimanded by authorities, forced to recant his warning[1][3].
– He contracted COVID-19 and died from the disease, not under mysterious circumstances[1][2].
– Official investigations cleared him posthumously, and he was honored for his role as a whistleblower[1][2].

Thus, while Dr. Li was indeed a whistleblower who faced official suppression, his death was medically confirmed as caused by COVID-19, not mysterious or suspicious. The circumstances of his reprimand and death have been publicly documented and investigated by Chinese authorities[1][2].

Citations

Claim

There ought to be hearings regarding U.S. tax dollars potentially helping create COVID.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

There have indeed been **hearings and investigations in the U.S. Congress regarding the potential role of U.S. tax dollars in funding research related to the origins of COVID-19**, including gain-of-function research that some allege could have contributed to the pandemic's emergence. These hearings aim to provide investigative accountability on whether U.S. government funding indirectly supported research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) or related projects that might have played a role in the virus's origin[1][2][3].

Key points supporting this include:

– The House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested documents from USAID about a $2.26 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance and the University of California at Davis, which partnered with the WIV on bat coronavirus research from 2009 to 2019. This funding was part of a broader USAID Emerging Pandemic Threat Program[1].

– In January 2025, Senator Rand Paul, as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, issued subpoenas to fourteen federal agencies, including NIH, USAID, and the Department of State, to investigate taxpayer-funded gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19. This was part of a broader Senate investigation into high-risk biological research and national security threats[2].

– The Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a comprehensive 520-page report in December 2024 concluding that COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak in Wuhan. The report highlighted concerns about gain-of-function research at the WIV, the unique biological characteristics of the virus, and the lack of evidence supporting a natural origin[3].

– The White House in April 2025 updated the COVID.gov website to present the lab leak theory as the "true origins" of COVID-19, reflecting the findings of the Select Subcommittee's report[4].

– Congressional hearings have also revealed internal contradictions and withheld information by federal officials and scientists regarding gain-of-function research and the lab leak hypothesis, suggesting a lack of transparency in the early stages of the pandemic investigation[5].

Therefore, the claim that there ought to be hearings regarding U.S. tax dollars potentially helping create COVID-19 is **accurate and has been acted upon through multiple congressional investigations and hearings**. These efforts reflect ongoing concerns about the oversight and transparency of taxpayer-funded research related to pandemic threats and the origins of COVID-19.

Citations

Claim

Over 90% of pharmaceuticals consumed in the U.S. are sourced from China.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **over 90% of pharmaceuticals consumed in the U.S. are sourced from China is not accurate as stated**. While the U.S. does rely heavily on imports for many pharmaceuticals, the data shows a more nuanced picture:

– About **90% of prescription drugs consumed in the U.S. are imported from other countries overall**, but this includes many countries, not just China[1][3].
– China is a **dominant supplier of key pharmaceutical ingredients and certain finished drugs**, especially active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and some over-the-counter drugs. For example, China supplies **95% of U.S. ibuprofen imports, 70% of acetaminophen imports, and 91% of hydrocortisone imports**[1][3].
– By weight, China accounted for about **23% of total U.S. pharmaceutical imports in 2021**, making it the leading single country supplier but far from 90%[3].
– India and China combined accounted for about **57.6% of total U.S. pharmaceutical imports by weight in 2024**, indicating significant reliance on both countries[4].
– The U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain is complex, with many generic drugs imported primarily from India and China, while brand-name drugs are often manufactured domestically or in the EU[5].

In summary, **China is a critical supplier of many pharmaceutical ingredients and some finished drugs, but it does not supply over 90% of all pharmaceuticals consumed in the U.S.** Instead, the U.S. imports about 90% of its pharmaceuticals in total from multiple countries, with China providing roughly a quarter of that volume by weight[1][3][4]. The claim likely conflates total pharmaceutical imports with the share specifically from China.

Citations

Claim

China was the largest net exporter of PPE before COVID-19.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **China was the largest net exporter of personal protective equipment (PPE) before COVID-19 is accurate**. In 2019, China was the world’s top supplier of PPE, exporting approximately $25.4 billion worth, which was significantly higher than other major exporters such as Germany ($17.3 billion), the United States ($13.9 billion), Japan ($6.5 billion), and France ($6.3 billion)[1].

However, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, China’s **net exports of PPE temporarily declined** due to a surge in domestic demand and increased imports to meet its own outbreak needs. For example, in January and February 2020, China imported more PPE and exported less, resulting in a reduction of net exports by about 24% compared to the same period in 2019[2][3]. This was a temporary disruption as China ramped up production dramatically; by late March 2020, production and exports surged, with China producing up to 12 times more masks than in 2019 and exports eventually more than doubling over the year[1][3][4].

In summary:

– **Pre-COVID-19 (2019):** China was the largest net exporter of PPE globally by a wide margin[1].
– **Early 2020 (pandemic onset):** Net exports dropped due to domestic demand and increased imports[2][3].
– **Later 2020:** China rapidly increased production and exports, surpassing pre-pandemic levels[1][3][4].

This evidence confirms the claim about China’s status as the largest net exporter of PPE before the pandemic, while also clarifying the temporary export decline during the initial COVID-19 outbreak phase.

Citations

Claim

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were misinformed about the risks to different age groups.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that during the COVID-19 pandemic many people were misinformed about the risks to different age groups is supported by research showing significant misinformation and misunderstanding across age demographics. Older adults (over 65 years) were found to be particularly vulnerable to misinformation, especially on platforms like WhatsApp, while younger adults (18–54) also exhibited strong misinformation beliefs, sometimes even more so than older adults in certain contexts[1][3][5].

Public health communication faced challenges because perceptions of COVID-19 risk varied widely by age. For example, younger adults often perceived their personal risk as low and were influenced by peer pressure and conflicting messages about preventive measures like mask-wearing[2]. Meanwhile, the clear scientific consensus that COVID-19 posed a much higher mortality risk to older adults was not uniformly understood or accepted by the public, partly due to misinformation and inconsistent messaging[4].

This misinformation affected behaviors and policy responses, with distorted risk perceptions leading to lower adherence to public health guidelines such as mask-wearing and vaccination, especially among younger populations who underestimated their role in transmission[2][4]. The presence of false information with seemingly credible sources further complicated efforts to convey accurate risk assessments[1][5].

In summary, the evidence confirms that misinformation about COVID-19 risks by age group was widespread, influencing public understanding and behavior during the pandemic. This highlights the critical need for clear, consistent, and targeted public health communication tailored to different age groups to effectively manage pandemic responses[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The EcoHealth Alliance was involved in gain of function research related to COVID-19.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that EcoHealth Alliance was involved in gain-of-function (GoF) research related to COVID-19 is **disputed and depends on the definition of gain-of-function used**. EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted bat coronavirus research, but according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition—which focuses on research that creates viruses with enhanced transmissibility or virulence in humans—this work was **not classified as gain-of-function research**. NIH confirmed this in a 2016 letter stating the proposed research was not subject to the GoF funding pause[1][2].

However, EcoHealth Alliance has faced criticism and scrutiny, particularly from U.S. congressional committees. Some lawmakers and investigators argue that EcoHealth failed to comply with federal reporting requirements and may have misled regulators about the nature of their research and its risks[3][4][5]. Republican members of a House subcommittee accused EcoHealth of not disclosing high-risk research and recommended barring the organization from future federal funding and pursuing criminal investigations[4]. NIH officials have testified that EcoHealth violated grant terms by not producing laboratory notebooks related to research at the Wuhan lab, which some characterize as gain-of-function research, though NIH officials also note that much gain-of-function research is broadly defined and not always regulated[5].

In summary:

– **EcoHealth Alliance’s bat coronavirus research was not officially classified as gain-of-function research by NIH standards because it did not involve viruses already known to infect humans with enhanced transmissibility or virulence.**
– **There is significant political and congressional controversy over EcoHealth’s transparency, compliance with grant rules, and the potential risks of their research.**
– **No conclusive evidence has been presented that EcoHealth’s research directly created SARS-CoV-2 or started the COVID-19 pandemic.**

Thus, while EcoHealth Alliance was involved in coronavirus research that some critics label as gain-of-function, the organization and NIH maintain that their work did not meet the formal criteria for gain-of-function research related to COVID-19[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The U.S. economy was severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the U.S. economy was severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic is **supported by extensive economic data and analysis**. The pandemic caused a sharp and historic contraction in economic activity, with significant job losses, business closures, and disruptions across multiple sectors.

Key supporting points include:

– The U.S. GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 3.5% in 2020, marking the largest contraction since 1946 and the first since 2009[3].

– The pandemic led to widespread unemployment and income loss, with over half of surveyed Americans reporting employment income loss early in the pandemic[3].

– The economic toll is estimated to reach **$14 trillion by the end of 2023**, accounting for lost revenue from mandatory business closures, reduced consumer activity (such as a 60% drop in airline travel and 65% drop in indoor dining at the pandemic's height), workplace absences, and other factors[1].

– The federal government enacted large stimulus packages (e.g., the $2.2 trillion CARES Act) to mitigate the damage, which helped reduce the depth of the recession and supported a faster recovery than might otherwise have occurred[2][3].

– Despite the severe initial impact, the U.S. recovery has been relatively swift and robust compared to other advanced economies, aided by fiscal support and vaccine deployment[4].

– The pandemic also caused a significant increase in the federal budget deficit and national debt, reflecting the scale of economic disruption and government response[3].

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic severely damaged the U.S. economy in 2020 and beyond, causing historic GDP contraction, job losses, and economic disruption. However, substantial government intervention and structural resilience have contributed to a strong recovery trajectory since then[1][2][3][4].

Citations

Claim

There is a perception that some individuals are above the law, which is harmful to society.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The perception that some individuals are above the law is widely recognized as harmful to society because it undermines public trust in the justice system and the principle of equal accountability under the law. This perception can erode confidence in legal institutions, weaken the rule of law, and foster social and political instability.

This issue is often explored in sociological and legal studies, which emphasize that when people believe certain actors—such as political leaders or powerful officials—are exempt from legal consequences, it damages the legitimacy of the justice system and democratic governance. For example, legal scholars note that the authority of offices like the Attorney General is crucial in upholding the law impartially and protecting constitutional rights, especially when challenging overreach or unlawful actions by other branches of government[2][3].

The summary you provided reflects a real-world example of this dynamic: a former Attorney General and U.S. Senator discusses their role in using legal authority to confront perceived political overreach and protect individual rights through litigation. This highlights the importance of legal institutions and officials acting as checks on power to maintain the rule of law and prevent any individual or group from being "above the law." The speaker’s emphasis on courts gaining influence and their efforts to challenge government mandates and policies illustrate how legal mechanisms serve as critical safeguards against abuses of power.

In conclusion, the claim that the perception of some individuals being above the law is harmful is supported by legal and sociological perspectives emphasizing the necessity of equal accountability and public trust in justice institutions. The role of legal officials, such as Attorneys General, is pivotal in addressing these challenges and preserving constitutional governance[2][3].

Citations

Claim

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ may pursue cases of discrimination that previous administrations did not.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ under the current administration has indeed pursued cases and initiatives that differ from previous administrations, particularly by aggressively targeting what it views as unlawful discriminatory practices in the private sector and scrutinizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This marks a notable shift in enforcement priorities compared to prior DOJ approaches.

Key evidence includes the 2025 Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which uses the False Claims Act (FCA) to investigate and potentially litigate against recipients of federal funds who allegedly violate civil rights laws by maintaining DEI policies deemed illegal under Executive Order 14173 issued by the Trump administration. This initiative represents a new collaboration between the DOJ’s Civil Division and Civil Rights Division, focusing on federal contractors and grantees, and signals a more aggressive stance on enforcement against certain DEI efforts and alleged antisemitism or "divisive" policies[1][2][4].

This approach contrasts with earlier DOJ practices, which did not typically combine FCA enforcement with civil rights investigations to this extent, nor did they focus as intensively on DEI programs. The current DOJ also encourages whistleblower involvement to report discrimination violations, further expanding enforcement reach[2][4].

In summary, the Civil Rights Division under the current DOJ has expanded its enforcement scope and methods, pursuing cases and initiatives that previous administrations did not emphasize, particularly regarding DEI policies and the use of the FCA to enforce civil rights compliance among federal fund recipients[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

The Southern District of New York had files related to the Epstein case.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The **Southern District of New York (SDNY) did have files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case**, as it was the federal district handling the criminal case against Epstein before his death in 2019. The case number was 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), and court proceedings, including hearings and filings, took place in SDNY courthouses in New York City[2][4].

Key points supporting this:

– The criminal case against Epstein was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, with hearings held at federal courthouses in Manhattan[2].
– The SDNY possessed extensive evidence and files, including grand jury materials, photographs, videos, and logs related to Epstein’s properties and alleged crimes[1][4].
– Some of these files remain sealed or partially withheld due to their sensitive nature, including images of victims and ongoing legal considerations about privacy and prosecutorial interests[1][3].
– Public and political pressure has mounted for the release of these files, but the Department of Justice and courts have so far limited disclosure to protect victims and ongoing investigations[1][3].

Therefore, the claim that the Southern District of New York had files related to the Epstein case is accurate and supported by official court records and DOJ statements. The SDNY was the primary federal jurisdiction managing the prosecution and custody of case materials[2][4].

Citations

Claim

James Comey's daughter was the lawyer handling the Epstein case in the Southern District of New York.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **James Comey's daughter was the lawyer handling the Epstein case in the Southern District of New York** is true. Maurene Comey, James Comey's daughter, was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and worked on the sex trafficking prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein before his death in 2019[1]. She was a veteran lawyer in that office, which is known for handling high-profile cases, including Epstein's.

Public records and news reports confirm Maurene Comey's role as an assistant U.S. attorney involved in the Epstein case, verifying the claim through credible sources[1][2].

Citations

Claim

The Senate is designed to have a third of its members up for re-election every two years.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **the U.S. Senate is designed to have one-third of its members up for re-election every two years** is accurate and grounded in the U.S. Constitution. Senators serve six-year terms, and the 100 Senate seats are divided into three classes, with each class staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. This system promotes stability and continuity in the Senate by preventing a complete turnover at any single election[1][3].

Specifically, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that after the first election, senators are divided into three classes with staggered terms: the first class’s seats expire after two years, the second after four years, and the third after six years, ensuring that one-third of the Senate is elected every two years[1][3]. This arrangement allows Senate elections to coincide with either presidential or midterm elections, maintaining a balance between continuity and democratic accountability.

Recent Senate elections, such as those in 2024, followed this pattern, with 33 of the 100 seats up for regular election, confirming the ongoing application of this design[4]. Special elections can occur outside this cycle to fill vacancies but do not alter the class system or the staggered election schedule[1].

Thus, the claim is verified by constitutional provisions and current electoral practice.

Citations

Claim

President Trump has given people the confidence to fight within the Republican Party.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **President Trump has given people the confidence to fight within the Republican Party** is supported by evidence showing that a strong majority of Republicans continue to express confidence in Trump’s leadership and policies, although this confidence has somewhat declined over time.

Specifically:

– Around **73% to 93% of Republicans** remain confident or approve of Trump’s job performance, with strong Republicans especially steadfast in their support (93% approval), indicating that Trump’s influence encourages intra-party assertiveness and loyalty[2][3].

– Despite some erosion among less-strong Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, Trump’s base within the party remains solid, which can be interpreted as empowering members to challenge traditional party norms or leadership, reflecting a willingness to "fight" within the party framework[2].

– Polls also show that Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to express confidence in Trump’s ability to handle domestic and foreign policy issues, reinforcing his role as a figure who emboldens Republican activists and politicians[1].

– However, the overall Republican confidence in Trump’s impact on government functioning has declined somewhat (from about 76% to 55% saying he makes government work better), indicating some nuanced shifts in intra-party dynamics and confidence levels[1].

In summary, while Republican confidence in Trump has softened compared to earlier in his presidency, a substantial majority of Republicans still view him positively and are likely emboldened by his leadership to assert themselves within the party. This supports the claim that Trump has given people confidence to fight within the Republican Party, especially among his core supporters[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

Trump's policy agenda and his nominees should get a fair shake within the Senate.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "Trump's policy agenda and his nominees should get a fair shake within the Senate" can be evaluated by examining recent Senate actions on confirmations and legislative responses to his agenda. Evidence shows that while Trump has aggressively pursued his policy agenda and nominations, his nominees have faced significant delays and procedural hurdles in the Senate, resulting in the longest average confirmation delays on record at the 200-day mark of his second administration[4]. This indicates that despite the volume and urgency of his nominations, the Senate has not uniformly provided a smooth or expedited confirmation process.

Regarding the policy agenda, Trump's administration has issued numerous executive orders aimed at expanding presidential powers, restructuring federal agencies, and promoting conservative priorities such as election integrity and deregulation[1][3]. However, the Senate's role in confirming key appointees and supporting legislative initiatives has been complicated by partisan gridlock and procedural obstacles[4]. Additionally, Trump has sought to increase political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation to circumvent delays and enhance control over the executive branch[2].

The speaker's reflection on their effectiveness as Attorney General during the Trump administration, particularly in legal challenges against perceived left-wing overreach and defending constitutional rights, aligns with the broader context of a politically charged environment where courts have become a significant arena for policy disputes. This shift in power dynamics, with courts playing a larger role than the legislature, underscores the challenges faced by the Senate in fully endorsing or opposing Trump's agenda[summary].

In summary, while Trump's policy agenda and nominees have been actively promoted by his administration, the Senate's response has been mixed, characterized by significant confirmation delays and procedural barriers, suggesting that a "fair shake" in the Senate has been limited by political and institutional factors[4]. The administration's efforts to bypass some Senate confirmation requirements through new categories of political appointees further reflect these challenges[2].

Citations

Claim

There has been an ascendance of 'American realism' in foreign policy under Trump.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there has been an ascendance of "American realism" in foreign policy under Trump is supported by multiple expert analyses indicating that Trump's approach reflects a form of foreign policy realism, particularly a "new realism" or "realpolitik" focused on power, national interest, and spheres of influence rather than idealism or multilateralism[1][2][4][5].

Key points supporting this include:

– **Emphasis on national interest and power:** Trump's foreign policy prioritizes U.S. security and interests above global values or institutions, consistent with classical realism's focus on power as the primary arbiter in international relations[1][2][4].

– **Recognition of spheres of influence:** The Trump administration has shown a tendency to acknowledge great powers' spheres of influence, such as Russia's opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, reflecting realist respect for power balances and influence zones[1][2][4][5].

– **Departure from interventionism:** Trump's policy is marked by anti-interventionism, seeking to reduce overseas military engagements and preferring economic tools like tariffs and sanctions over military action, aligning with realist caution about costly foreign entanglements[2].

– **Transactional and deal-making style:** While some analysts argue Trump's approach is disruptive and transactional rather than strictly rational or alliance-focused realism, it still falls under a pragmatic, power-centered foreign policy rather than idealistic internationalism[1][3][5].

– **Shift from liberal internationalism:** Trump's foreign policy contrasts with the post-Cold War blend of liberal internationalism and realism, moving toward a more straightforward realist posture emphasizing national sovereignty and power politics[4].

In summary, expert analyses characterize Trump's foreign policy as a distinct form of realism—sometimes called "new realism"—that emphasizes American power, national interest, spheres of influence, and a pragmatic, deal-oriented approach, marking a clear shift from previous U.S. foreign policy paradigms[1][2][4][5]. However, some debate remains about how closely Trump's style aligns with traditional realist theory, given its transactional and sometimes disruptive nature[3].

Citations

Claim

President Trump used tariffs to get better trade deals for the United States.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

President Trump used tariffs as a key tool to try to secure better trade deals for the United States, particularly focusing on reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries like China to make structural reforms. His administration imposed significant tariffs on imports from China, steel, aluminum, and other goods, aiming to protect American industries and leverage negotiations for improved trade terms[3][4].

The U.S.-China trade war is the most notable example, where tariffs were imposed on billions of dollars of Chinese goods to push China toward changes such as better intellectual property protections and reduced subsidies to Chinese industries[1][4]. These tariffs covered a substantial portion of U.S. imports and led to retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, impacting trade flows and economic activity[1][3].

Regarding trade agreements, the Trump administration sought to use the threat and imposition of tariffs as leverage to negotiate new deals. Some agreements were reached, such as a framework deal with the United Kingdom and a deal with Vietnam, but these were often partial or limited in scope. Critics and trade experts noted that the promised "big" deals largely did not materialize quickly, and some trading partners were hesitant to accept terms that might disadvantage them compared to the status quo[2][5].

In summary, tariffs were a central part of Trump's trade policy intended to improve U.S. trade deals, with mixed results: they did lead to some agreements and changes in trade dynamics but also caused retaliations and economic disruptions, and the overall effectiveness in securing substantially better trade deals remains debated among experts[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

The 21st century is defined by competition with communist China.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the **21st century is defined by competition with communist China** is strongly supported by geopolitical analyses and expert opinions on U.S.-China relations. The strategic rivalry between the United States and China is widely recognized as a defining feature of contemporary global politics.

Key points supporting this include:

– The **U.S.-China competition is characterized as a strategic rivalry** involving economic, military, and geopolitical dimensions. China’s rapid economic growth, military expansion, and global initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative have challenged U.S. regional and global influence[1][2].

– Under the Trump administration, the U.S. explicitly labeled China as a **strategic competitor**, ending a previous engagement policy and initiating trade wars, sanctions, and military posturing, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. This marked a shift to a more confrontational stance that has largely persisted[1][3][4].

– The competition extends beyond economics to include **military spending and geopolitical influence**, with both countries being the world’s largest military spenders and competing over Taiwan, the South China Sea, Africa, and other regions[2].

– The Biden administration has maintained many of the tariffs and tough policies on China, indicating that the rivalry is a sustained feature of U.S. foreign policy rather than a transient phase[2].

– Analysts note that this rivalry has led to a **widening gap in cooperation**, with the U.S. strengthening alliances like the G7 and China investing in alternative groupings such as BRICS+, reflecting a broader global realignment[5].

In summary, the 21st century’s geopolitical landscape is indeed **marked by intense competition between the U.S. and communist China**, encompassing economic, military, and ideological dimensions, and shaping global power dynamics[1][2][3][4][5].

Regarding the additional information about the speaker reflecting on their roles as Attorney General and U.S. Senator, their emphasis on confronting political challenges and shifts in power dynamics within the U.S. legal and political system is a separate but complementary theme. It highlights domestic political struggles and leadership challenges but does not contradict the broader geopolitical reality of U.S.-China competition.

Citations

Claim

I think they don't have a message.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Democratic Party "doesn't have a message" is not supported by recent evidence. The Democratic Party has actively developed and deployed clear, strategic messaging efforts, particularly focused on digital platforms to engage voters and counter Republican narratives. For example, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has launched a new digital strategy emphasizing authentic and offensive messaging to energize voters and combat Donald Trump's agenda, including innovative social media tactics and collaborations with online influencers and content creators[1][2].

Additionally, party leaders acknowledge the importance of adapting to the changing media landscape and have seen measurable growth in engagement with their content, indicating a coherent effort to communicate their message effectively[2]. Internal party discussions and reform initiatives also suggest a deliberate process to refine and clarify the party’s fundamental beliefs and policy aims to build a sustainable majority in future elections[3]. The DNC has even solicited input from supporters on their highest priorities to shape ongoing messaging and policy focus[4].

In summary, while there may be debates about the content or effectiveness of the message, the Democratic Party clearly has an active and evolving messaging strategy rather than lacking one altogether. This contradicts the claim that they "don't have a message."

Citations

Claim

The government has created a vast censorship enterprise.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the government has created a vast censorship enterprise, specifically through coordination with social media companies to censor speech, is supported by evidence of significant government involvement in influencing content moderation, though the extent and legal characterization of this involvement remain contested.

Multiple sources document that federal officials, particularly during the Biden administration, engaged in extensive communication with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to address misinformation, especially related to COVID-19. Internal emails reveal that government agencies, including the CDC and the White House, coordinated with social media executives to identify and remove content deemed misinformation, with companies often awaiting government input before taking action[1][2]. This practice, sometimes called "jawboning," involves informal government pressure or persuasion to influence private companies' content policies[5].

The House Judiciary Committee released documents showing that social media companies frequently complied with government requests to remove or restrict content, sometimes reluctantly, due to concerns about potential regulatory or enforcement consequences[2]. This suggests a form of government coercion or inducement, which some legal scholars argue can constitute a First Amendment violation if the government effectively compels private censorship[4].

However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that plaintiffs challenging this government-social media coordination lacked legal standing, finding insufficient evidence of a direct, concrete link between government actions and social media censorship decisions. The Court allowed government officials to continue communicating with social media companies, emphasizing that platforms retain independent control over their policies[3][4]. The decision reflects judicial caution about broadly restricting government communication with private companies, despite concerns about free speech implications.

In summary, there is credible evidence that the government has actively coordinated with social media companies to influence content moderation, which some characterize as a form of censorship enterprise. Yet, legal authorities have not definitively classified this as unconstitutional government censorship due to the complexity of proving coercion and the independent role of private platforms[1][2][3][4][5]. The issue remains a significant and evolving topic in debates over free speech, government power, and social media regulation.

Citations

Claim

There are twice as many people that work in government than have manufacturing jobs in this country.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **there are twice as many people working in government than in manufacturing in the U.S. is not supported by recent labor statistics**.

According to the most recent data from mid-2025:

– **Manufacturing employment** in the U.S. is approximately **12.7 million** workers as of July 2025[4].
– Employment in the **federal government** sector alone decreased by 22,000 jobs in May 2025, but the total government employment (including federal, state, and local) is not explicitly stated in the search results. However, total government employment is generally less than manufacturing employment.
– The total nonfarm employment is about 163 million, with manufacturing making up roughly 12.7 million of those jobs[4][5].

Historical and typical data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that **government employment (federal, state, and local combined) is generally less than or roughly comparable to manufacturing employment**, but not double. For example, federal government employment alone is around 2-3 million, and adding state and local government jobs brings the total to roughly 20-22 million, which is close but not twice the manufacturing workforce.

Therefore, the claim that government employment is twice that of manufacturing jobs is **likely an exaggeration or inaccurate** based on the latest available employment statistics. The two sectors have somewhat comparable employment levels, but government employment is not double manufacturing employment[1][4][5].

In summary:

This shows government employment is somewhat higher but not twice as large as manufacturing employment. The claim is thus **not supported by current labor statistics**.

Citations

Claim

I think the number was 90,000 factories have left the United States since NAFTA.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **90,000 factories have left the United States since NAFTA** is based on an outdated and somewhat misleading interpretation of data. The figure originates from a 2020 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, which found a net loss of about 91,000 manufacturing establishments between 1997 and 2018. However, this data was revised in 2021, and updated figures show a net loss closer to 70,500 manufacturing establishments from 1997 to 2022[1][2].

It is important to note that this number includes all manufacturing establishments, many of which are small facilities with only a few employees, and does not solely represent large factory closures. Moreover, the decline in manufacturing establishments and jobs is influenced by multiple factors beyond NAFTA, including technological advances and productivity improvements that have reduced the need for labor even as manufacturing output increased[3].

Economic studies estimate that trade with Mexico under NAFTA contributed to a relatively small portion of overall U.S. manufacturing job losses—around 100,000 net jobs lost due to trade with Mexico, which is a small fraction of total manufacturing employment[3]. Other research, such as from the Keystone Research Center, shows that trade with Mexico and Canada accounted for about 20-25% of Pennsylvania's manufacturing job losses since 1993, indicating regional variation but not a wholesale collapse of manufacturing due to NAFTA alone[4].

In summary, while there has been a significant decline in the number of manufacturing establishments in the U.S. since NAFTA, the **claim of 90,000 factories lost is an overstatement based on outdated data and lacks context about the complexity of manufacturing changes**. The decline is due to a combination of trade, technological change, and productivity gains rather than NAFTA alone[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

California would lose seats no doubt if only citizens were counted in the census.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **California would lose seats no doubt if only citizens were counted in the census** is supported by demographic analyses and census data studies. Removing non-citizens, including unauthorized immigrants, from the census apportionment count would likely reduce California’s population count enough to cause it to lose at least one congressional seat.

Key points supporting this conclusion:

– **Unauthorized immigrants significantly affect California’s population count.** Estimates indicate California had roughly 2.6 million unauthorized immigrants as of 2022[2]. Since the census counts all residents regardless of citizenship, including these populations inflates California’s total population used for congressional apportionment.

– **Excluding unauthorized immigrants would reduce California’s apportionment.** A Pew Research Center analysis found that if unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the 2020 census apportionment count, California would lose one or two congressional seats it otherwise would have retained based on total population[1].

– **Undercounting immigrant communities also risks seat loss.** Research from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that if immigrant households, including undocumented immigrants, are undercounted by even 10%, California could lose a House seat[3]. This highlights the sensitivity of California’s representation to how immigrant populations are counted.

– **However, some research suggests the impact on apportionment is modest.** A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that including undocumented residents in census data has had a negligible impact on House seat apportionment since 1980, indicating the effect may not be as large as sometimes claimed[4]. Still, this does not contradict that California is among the states most affected by counting non-citizens.

– **Recent political debates reflect this issue.** The Equal Representation Act, reintroduced by Republicans, seeks to exclude non-citizens from census counts used for congressional apportionment, citing concerns that states like California gain disproportionate political power due to large non-citizen populations[2].

In summary, **counting only citizens in the census would almost certainly reduce California’s population count used for congressional apportionment, leading to a loss of at least one House seat**. This is because California’s large non-citizen population currently contributes to its total population count, which determines the number of congressional seats. The exact magnitude of seat loss depends on the size of the non-citizen population and undercount rates but is supported by multiple demographic analyses[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

If the Democrats are really in this mode of resistance, it's going to be you know who knows how this all plays out.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "If the Democrats are really in this mode of resistance, it's going to be you know who knows how this all plays out" reflects uncertainty about the future political landscape given the Democrats' current resistance strategies. This uncertainty is supported by evidence of heightened political tensions, radicalization within the Democratic base, and evolving resistance tactics.

Current political trends show that some Democrats and their constituents are adopting increasingly confrontational approaches to counter what they perceive as authoritarian threats, particularly from former President Trump and his allies. For example, some Democratic lawmakers report that their voters are frustrated with traditional civility and are calling for more aggressive actions, even suggesting readiness for violence to defend democracy[2]. This indicates a shift toward a more radical and unpredictable political environment.

Additionally, institutional resistance strategies—such as legal challenges and legislative actions—have been critical but their effectiveness depends on the broader political context and power dynamics, including the courts' growing influence[3]. The speaker’s reflection on their time as Attorney General during the Trump administration, where they engaged in legal battles to uphold constitutional rights, aligns with this trend of using judicial means to resist political overreach.

On the other side, there is also a documented effort to prepare for and push back against what some see as authoritarian ambitions in the upcoming Trump-aligned Project 2025 agenda, which includes measures that could undermine democratic norms and civil rights[1]. This further complicates the political landscape and adds to the unpredictability of how resistance efforts will unfold.

In summary, the claim about uncertainty in how the Democrats' resistance mode will play out is well-founded given the current radicalization, calls for more forceful resistance, and the complex interplay of legal and political strategies shaping the future political environment[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

By 2030, the global temperature will rise by 2 degrees Celsius.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **global temperature will rise by 2 degrees Celsius by 2030** is supported by recent scientific projections, particularly from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WMO's 2025 report warns that global temperatures could near or reach 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030, with a high likelihood of surpassing the 1.5°C threshold within the next five years[1][2]. This projection is based on climate modeling and observational data showing that warming has already momentarily exceeded 1.5°C in 2024[1][2].

Key points supporting this projection:

– The WMO forecasts annual average global surface temperatures between 1.2°C and 1.9°C above 1850-1900 averages for the years 2025 to 2029, with an 80% chance that one of these years will be the hottest on record and an 86% chance that at least one year will exceed 1.5°C warming[2].
– NASA and other climate research institutions identify 2°C as a critical threshold beyond which dangerous and cascading climate impacts become much more severe and widespread, including extreme heat stress, drought, and wildfire risks[4].
– AI-driven climate modeling from Stanford and Colorado State University also suggests a significant chance of breaching 2°C warming even if current emission reduction goals are met, indicating the urgency of rapid decarbonization[3].

However, it is important to note that while these projections indicate a high risk of reaching or nearing 2°C warming by 2030, the exact timing and extent depend on future greenhouse gas emissions and policy actions. Current global policies are projected to lead to about 2.7°C warming by 2100, which underscores the challenge of limiting warming to safer levels[5].

In summary, **scientific climate models and recent observational data strongly support the projection that global temperatures could rise by about 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030**, marking a critical and dangerous threshold for climate impacts[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

The courts have more power than voters.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "the courts have more power than voters" reflects a complex and contested dynamic in the U.S. political system, where judicial decisions can significantly influence or override electoral outcomes and legislative actions. While voters hold formal authority through elections, courts—especially the Supreme Court—have increasingly played a decisive role in shaping election laws, voting rights, and constitutional interpretation, sometimes limiting voter influence and legislative power.

Recent scholarship and analysis indicate that the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency to favor established power structures and candidates over expanding voter access, which some argue undermines democratic participation and voter influence[1]. For example, the Court has narrowed protections under the Voting Rights Act, making it easier for states to impose voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minority voters[4]. This judicial activism can effectively constrain the power of voters by shaping the rules under which elections occur.

At the same time, public opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans recognize and support the courts' vital role in checking abuses of power by elected officials, including presidents, and in upholding constitutional rights[3]. This suggests a societal acceptance of judicial power as a necessary balance to electoral politics.

However, the courts do not operate in isolation; their power is constitutionally bounded and subject to legislative action and public accountability. For instance, Congress can pass new laws to clarify or adjust judicial powers, and state courts also play important roles in election disputes[2][5]. The balance of power between courts and voters is thus dynamic and shaped by ongoing political and legal contestation.

In summary, while voters hold democratic authority through elections, courts—particularly the Supreme Court—have gained significant influence that can sometimes eclipse direct voter power by determining the legal framework of elections and constitutional rights. This shift has raised concerns about the balance of power in U.S. democracy and the potential for courts to act as gatekeepers favoring established interests over voter participation[1][4]. Nonetheless, courts are also viewed as essential checks on elected officials, and their power is subject to legal and political constraints[3][5].

Citations

Claim

We prevented a hundred million people from being forced to be vaccinated due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "We prevented a hundred million people from being forced to be vaccinated due to a Supreme Court ruling" is broadly supported by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to block the Biden administration's OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate for large businesses. This ruling effectively stopped enforcement of a mandate that would have applied to approximately 84 million workers nationwide, preventing many from being compelled to vaccinate under that federal rule[1][3][5].

Key details include:

– On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to block OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that required businesses with 100 or more employees to mandate vaccination or weekly testing[1][3].

– The Court held that OSHA exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a broad public health mandate rather than regulating occupational safety narrowly[1][3].

– This ruling halted enforcement of the mandate, which was estimated to cover tens of millions of workers (around 84 million people)[3].

– The decision was hailed by states and business groups as a victory against what they viewed as federal overreach[5].

– However, the Court did allow a separate vaccine mandate for healthcare workers under CMS to proceed, distinguishing the legal basis for that rule[4].

– Other vaccine mandates, such as those for federal employees, saw different legal outcomes, including the Supreme Court vacating lower court rulings and dismissing cases as moot after mandates were withdrawn[2].

In summary, the Supreme Court ruling did prevent a very large number of workers—on the order of tens of millions—from being forced to comply with the OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate, which aligns with the claim's scale of "a hundred million people" in a general sense. However, the exact figure is closer to around 84 million workers covered by the OSHA mandate before it was blocked[1][3]. The ruling did not address all vaccine mandates nationwide but was a significant legal check on federal workplace vaccine requirements.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!