Category: Fact Check

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

President Joe Biden said he has caught former President Donald Trump admitting that he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare. The Trump campaign said, in context, Trump was talking about cutting waste and fraud in those programs – not benefits.

There’s some room for disagreement about what Trump may have meant. But Trump has consistently said at other times — not only in this campaign but also as president — that he would not make any cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

However, even assuming Trump meant to say that he planned to solve the financial predicament faced by Social Security and Medicare by combating waste, fraud and abuse, experts say that wouldn’t do much to fix the long-term finances of those programs.

First, here is what Trump said in an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen. We bolded the part that Biden and his campaign have highlighted.

Kernen, March 11: There are stark policy differences, obviously, Mr. President, but one thing that I think that at least the perception is that there’s not a whole lot of difference between what you think we should do with entitlements or non-discretionary spending and what President Biden is proposing. It’s almost a third rail of politics. And we’ve got to what a $33, $34 trillion total debt built up and very little we can do in terms of cutting spending. Discretionary is not going to help. Have you changed your, your outlook on how to handle entitlements Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Mr. President? Seems like something has to be done, or else we’re going to be stuck at 120% of debt-to-GDP forever.

Trump: So first of all, there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements, tremendous bad management of entitlements. There’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do. So I don’t necessarily agree with the statement. I know that they’re going to end up weakening Social Security because the country is weak.

Later that day, on X, Biden posted a clip of the interview, ending with Trump saying, “So first of all, there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting.” Biden commented, “Not on my watch.”

And on March 12, Biden again posted that audio clip. The tweet from Biden said, “I watched the clip of Trump proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I won’t let Trump take seniors’ hard-earned benefits to give tax breaks to his wealthy friends.”

The following day, during a speech in Wisconsin, Biden promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and criticized Trump for his recent remarks. “You know, just this week Donald Trump said cuts to Social Security and Medicare are on the table,” Biden said. “When asked if he’d change his position, he said, quote, ‘There’s a lot we can do in terms of cutting. Tremendous amount of things we can do,’ end of quote.”

But it wasn’t “end of quote,” as Trump’s full response above shows.

The Trump campaign responded with a post on X that said, “If you losers didn’t cut his answer short, you would know President Trump was talking about cutting waste.” The post includes a clip of the Trump interview that extends all the way to him saying, “So I don’t necessarily agree with the statement.”

The Washington Post noted that the Trump campaign also sent out an email blast headlined “President Trump Reiterates Protecting Entitlements Like Social Security and Medicare; Would Get Rid of Waste and Fraud.” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told MarketWatch, “The transcript of his answer … clearly states he did not say anything about cutting entitlements.”

In an interview with Breitbart on March 13, Trump said, “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare. We’ll have to do it elsewhere. But we’re not going to do anything to hurt them.”

“There’s so many things we can do,” Trump said. “There’s so much cutting and so much waste in so many other areas, but I’ll never do anything to hurt Social Security.”

There are aspects of Trump’s comments that support the interpretations of both campaigns.

Trump said there is “a lot to do” with entitlements “in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.” The word “also” suggests he was talking about “theft and bad management” in addition to cutting entitlement programs.

However, it’s also true that Trump frequently says on the campaign trail that he would protect the programs, as he did at an event in Georgia on March 9 two days before the CNBC interview. “As I said, for many years, I will always protect Medicare and Social Security,” Trump said.

Back when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley were still in the Republican primary, Trump would often criticize them for saying they would raise the eligibility age for Social Security — and as we have written, Trump sometimes got his facts wrong when doing so.

During Biden’s State of the Union address, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Republicans have no plan to cut Social Security, a made up story by Crooked Joe!” As we wrote, some Republicans — though not Trump — have proposed raising the retirement age for some future beneficiaries. That would reduce scheduled benefits for those affected, and therefore is considered by budget experts to be a cut of the program.

When House Republicans in early 2023 began to debate among themselves how to reduce government spending, Trump warned them not to include any cuts to Social Security or Medicare.

“Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security to help pay for Joe Biden’s reckless spending spree,” Trump said in a video posted to Truth Social on Jan. 20. Trump listed “waste fraud and abuse” as one potential area to cut the budget. He added, “But do not cut the benefits our seniors worked for and paid for their entire lives. Save Social Security. Don’t destroy it.”

Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Kernen was correct that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid finances are problematic.

Unless the program is changed or new revenues are raised, the reserves of the Social Security trust fund related to the retirement portion of the program are projected to become depleted in 2033. At that time the program would only have enough income to pay 77% of scheduled retirement benefits, according to the latest report from the trustees overseeing the program.

Likewise, trustees of the Medicare trust funds warn that future expenditures will increasingly outpace workers’ earnings or the projected growth in the economy, such that the trust fund reserves for Part A, which covers hospital expenses, will be deleted in 2031. At that time, revenues would cover just 89% of program costs.

The trustees estimate that under current policies, the Social Security retirement and disability programs will amass a $22.4 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years. The Medicare trustees estimate a $4.4 trillion shortfall over that same time.

Trump has been saying all the way back to when he first became a candidate for president that he would solve Social Security and Medicare funding gaps by tackling waste, fraud and abuse in the programs. “Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it,” Trump said at the June 2015 announcement of his presidential candidacy. “Get rid of the fraud. Get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it.”

But experts told us there’s simply not enough waste, fraud and abuse in the programs to solve their financial challenges.

“First: you can’t fix Social Security’s finances simply by attacking waste, fraud and abuse,” Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told us via email. “Social Security is an extraordinarily efficient program, with extremely low administrative costs. Social Security faces a massive funding shortfall, not because of improper payments or administrative waste, but because its scheduled benefits far exceed the amount that worker tax contributions can actually fund. 

“For perspective, consider that Social Security’s financing shortfall equates to more than 21% of scheduled benefits over the next 75 years, while its administrative cost rate is roughly 0.5% of expenses.

“Medicaid is a different story,” Blahous said, where “improper payments” are “a significant problem.”

“Medicare is somewhere in the middle,” he said. “Improper payments are a serious concern in Medicare as well, perhaps one-third to one-half as bad as they are in Medicaid. But Medicare’s financing challenges are so large that they can’t be solved purely by attacking waste and fraud. For perspective, consider my finding that nearly half of the long-term federal fiscal imbalance is due to excess Medicare cost growth alone. That can’t be fixed without taxpayers, healthcare providers and beneficiaries (at least high-income beneficiaries) all contributing to the solution.”

In 2016, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote that all improper payments from Social Security, including payments to the deceased and the very old, were estimated to be about $3 billion per year. Given that Social Security benefits that year exceeded $900 billion, eliminating all improper payments would have reduced costs “by at most 0.4 percent, extending the program’s solvency by about 3 months.”

“Social Security cannot be meaningfully fixed with waste, fraud and abuse, as per our post,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email.

“Medicare is a different story,” Goldwein said. “There are a tremendous amount of overpayments to providers and insurance companies that one could regard as ‘waste’ and are sometimes connected to fraud and abuse. We could save a tremendous amount of money by reducing these excessive payments.”

As president, of course, Trump had four years to try to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. And his proposed budgets sought to make some headway. But again, just addressing waste, fraud and abuse will not solve the long-term finances of Social Security and Medicare.

As president, Trump proposed budgets that included significant reductions in future Medicare spending. But as we wrote, experts told us the proposals included bipartisan ideas also supported by former President Barack Obama. CRFB said the Medicare proposals “represent reductions in costs not cuts to benefits.”

Trump did not propose cuts to Social Security retirement benefits — including the age of eligibility for benefits — but, as we wrote, his budgets did call for changes to disability benefits that would translate to cuts for some beneficiaries.

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Q: Is one day isolation sufficient to stop forward transmission of COVID-19? 

A: People with COVID-19 could potentially transmit it to others well beyond a day after developing symptoms or testing positive. New guidance from the CDC advises people to isolate until they have been fever-free and with symptoms improving for at least 24 hours, and then take precautions for five days, which covers the period when “most people are still infectious.”

FULL ANSWER

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 1 updated its guidance on preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, consolidating advice on a range of common respiratory illnesses including COVID-19, flu and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Since December 2021, the agency had recommended individuals isolate for at least five days after developing symptoms of COVID-19, or after a positive test if asymptomatic. After five days, the agency recommended various symptom-based criteria for leaving isolation combined with additional continued precautions, such as masking.

The new guidance drops the standard minimum of five days of isolation in favor of a symptom-based approach. The agency advises people to stay home and away from others when they are sick with a respiratory virus. People can cease isolation if, over a period of 24 hours, their overall symptoms have been improving and they have been fever-free without using fever-reducing medications. 

Many people have had questions about what the new guidance means for people who have COVID-19. Some, like our reader, have referred to the idea that the guidance means only one day of isolation is needed. “do you agree with Biden that one day isolation for covid is fine and dandy??” asked one person on X, formerly known as Twitter.

But that’s not what Biden or the CDC is recommending.

“It’s not saying isolate for 24 hours,” epidemiologist Ronit Dalmat, a research scientist at the University of Washington, told us, referring to the CDC guidance. “It’s saying if you have a fever, absolutely stay home” until it has been gone for 24 hours, and also stay home until other symptoms are improving.

Nor does the CDC say people are guaranteed not to spread COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses after their symptoms have improved. “Keep in mind that you may still be able to spread the virus that made you sick, even if you are feeling better,” the guidance says. “You are likely to be less contagious at this time, depending on factors like how long you were sick or how sick you were.”

The guidance recommends continuing to take precautions for five days after resuming normal activities. These include physical distancing, testing, improving air quality, using good hygiene and wearing a well-fitting mask, such as an N95 or KN95.

“The total number of days of precautions when sick, that is, a period of staying home and away from others plus 5 days of additional actions, covers the period during which most people are still infectious,” the CDC wrote in an FAQ.

“That whole period could be quite a while,” Dalmat said. “That could be 10 days for some people.”

The CDC said in background materials accompanying the new guidance that it looked at data from countries and states that had adopted similar policies for COVID-19 isolation and had not seen “clear increases in community transmission or hospitalization rates.”

“The updated guidance on steps to prevent spread when you are sick particularly reflects the key reality that many people with respiratory virus symptoms do not know the specific virus they are infected with,” the CDC said. The agency noted that its survey data indicated less than half of people with cold or cough symptoms would take an at-home COVID-19 test.

Some on social media have misinterpreted the guidance as an admission that it was always reasonable to liken COVID-19 to the flu, as was done early in the pandemic despite the marked difference in the diseases’ severity.

But the new CDC guidance acknowledges the continued seriousness of COVID-19 while also detailing the ways in which treatments, vaccines and population immunity have improved outcomes for people with the disease.

“COVID-19 remains a greater cause of severe illness and death than other respiratory viruses, but the differences between these rates are much smaller than they were earlier in the pandemic,” the CDC said. The agency explained that the risks are reduced due to the availability of COVID-19 treatments and population immunity to the virus, both from vaccination and prior infection. The agency also said that long COVID remains a risk, although the prevalence appears to be falling.

The Science on COVID-19 Transmission

Whether someone transmits COVID-19 depends on multiple factors. These include a person’s infectious viral load, but also the susceptibility of the people the infected person encounters and the precautions taken.

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to how long a particular individual will shed infectious virus and how much they will shed. “Everybody has a slightly different ability to control the amount of virus in their system, which is a part of what makes the virus shed,” Dalmat said. Variation in how people’s bodies fight a virus affects “how much virus you are putting in the world that is infectious.” 

There’s evidence that a relatively small number of people who shed particularly high levels of the virus over the course of their infections have been responsible for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases, and many people with COVID-19 do not infect others.

However, according to the CDC, the data on the typical overall length of shedding has not significantly changed, even as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — have arisen. “Even as the SARS-CoV-2 virus has continued to evolve, the duration of shedding infectious virus has remained relatively consistent, with most individuals no longer infectious after 8-10 days,” the agency said.

The CDC accompanied this statement with a figure showing data collected by the Respiratory Virus Transmission Network from five U.S. sites between November 2022 and May 2023 (see below). One line on the graph (light blue) shows how often researchers were able to isolate and grow — or culture — virus from people with COVID-19.

Trying to culture the virus that causes COVID-19 from a respiratory sample — a laborious process used in research — indicates whether someone is carrying infectious virus. The figure shows that the proportion of people with culturable virus began to increase two days before symptoms begin, or before a positive test for those who were asymptomatic, peaking around one to two days after symptom onset. After that, the rate began falling, with around one-third of people having culturable virus at day five. By day 10, the percentage had dropped to around 10%.

A different study, published in 2023 in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, combined data from multiple studies done in people diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2021 and 2022. The average duration of shedding of culturable virus was just over five days from symptom onset or first positive PCR test, whichever came first.

Another metric for assessing infectiousness in people with COVID-19 is viral load, often measured as the amount of viral materials, such as RNA or proteins, found in a respiratory sample. A 2023 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that median viral load for people diagnosed with COVID-19 peaked around three or four days after symptoms started. The study assessed people seeking testing for respiratory infections between April 2022 and April 2023.

Someone who is shedding infectious virus may or may not transmit it to others. One factor is that the average person is less susceptible to infection today than they were early in the pandemic, Dalmat said.

“Even if the person is producing the exact same amount of virus today as they could have three years ago, the people on the other end on average are less likely to get infected,” Dalmat said, explaining that today more than 98% of the population has had some exposure to COVID-19 itself, COVID-19 vaccines or both.

When people do get infected, the cases tend to be less severe. “Among the people who get infected with COVID these days, on average it is much rarer that it turns into a very serious illness,” Dalmat said, while also acknowledging that a lot of individuals “are still very vulnerable.” People at elevated risk for severe disease include those who are elderly or immune compromised.

While the CDC guidance harmonizes suggested precautions for COVID-19 and other common respiratory viruses, there are differences in the details of how COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses are spread.

The new guidance is meant to be a general rule of thumb but does not apply to health care settings or cases where there is an outbreak of a disease that requires special instructions, the CDC said. The CDC also said the agency is working on specific guidance for schools, which should be available prior to the 2024/2025 school year.

Masks, Tests and Other Precautions

Isolating from other people when sick is a key way to reduce one’s risk of spreading COVID-19. But the CDC guidance lists additional ways to reduce the chances of spreading a respiratory illness.

Masks can help prevent the wearer from spreading a respiratory virus. They can also protect others from inhaling a virus, particularly well-fitting masks such as N95 or KN95 respirators, the guidance says. Individuals can take measures to improve their hygiene and the air quality in their surroundings and maintain physical distance from others, such as by avoiding crowded spaces.

The CDC still recommends testing to help high-risk people who are sick determine whether to seek treatment for a specific virus. For instance, someone with COVID-19 may benefit from receiving Paxlovid within five days of when their symptoms start. The guidance also lists tests as a tool that can help people decide when they need to take precautions to avoid spreading disease.

At-home rapid antigen tests can be helpful for people who are recovering from COVID-19 and want to see if they still have infectious virus, Dalmat said. In their research, she and her colleagues found that among people who tested positive for COVID-19 on a rapid antigen test, subsequent negative antigen test results were “very, very highly correlated to whether you had infectious virus or not,” she said. That means people with COVID-19 who start to test negative on rapid antigen tests as they get better likely are no longer at risk of infecting others.

However, the CDC cautions that rapid antigen tests early in the course of a person’s infection often miss COVID-19. People who are sick should be taking precautions regardless of test results, Dalmat said. “They shouldn’t test and have a negative test be the end of it,” she said.

The authors of the Clinical Infectious Diseases study, which measured viral loads over the course of infection, wrote that “our data in combination with others’ suggest that symptomatic individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR currently may not reliably test positive on a rapid antigen test until the third, fourth, or even fifth day of symptoms.”

The CDC guidance says people can end isolation when they have been fever-free and their symptoms have been improving for at least 24 hours. Dalmat cautioned that the definition of improving symptoms is somewhat ambiguous. 

“Symptoms improving can mean different things to different people,” Dalmat said, adding that people should make sure their symptoms are truly getting better. “If your symptoms are not really improving – not kind of plateauing but really improving — you should continue to stay home and continue to take whatever measures you are taking in your household.”

---

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

Branswell, Helen. “CDC Eases Isolation Guidance for Covid and Other Respiratory Illnesses.” STAT. 1 Mar 2024.

“Preventing Spread of Respiratory Viruses When You’re Sick.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“CDC’s Updated Respiratory Virus Guidance: What to Do When You Are Sick.” CDC website. 1 Mar 2024.

“CDC Updates and Shortens Recommended Isolation and Quarantine Period for General Population.” CDC website. 27 Dec 2021.

“Isolation and Precautions for People with COVID-19.” CDC website. Updated 11 Mar 2023.

Cali Dreaming NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc). “Prof Hotez: do you agree with Biden that one day isolation for covid is fine and dandy??” X. 2 Mar 2024.

Dalmat, Ronit. Interview with FactCheck.org. 

“Respiratory Virus Guidance Update FAQs.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“Background for CDC’s Updated Respiratory Virus Guidance.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

Matt Kim 🇰🇷🇺🇸 (@mattattack009). “Zero Accountability.” Instagram. 4 Mar 2024.

DiedSuddenly (@DiedSuddenly_). “Turns out everything they told you about Covid was a lie. Of course they knew this 3 years ago, and they’ll show zero remorse for what they have done.” X. 2 Mar 2024.

Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres). “… and then one day, four years later on a Friday afternoon when no one was looking, the CDC admitted that the great conspiracy theory about Covid was true.” X. 1 Mar 2024.

Rieder, Rem. “Trump’s Deceptive Comparison of the Coronavirus to the Flu.” FactCheck.org. 9 Sep 2020.

“How is COVID-19 transmitted?” FactCheck.org. Updated 11 Feb 2022.

Puhach, Olha et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Shedding Kinetics.” Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2 Dec 2022.

Wu, Yu et al. “Duration of Viable Virus Shedding and Polymerase Chain Reaction Positivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the Upper Respiratory Tract: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 18 Feb 2023.

Frediani, Jennifer K. et al. “The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs.” Clinical Infectious Diseases. 28 Sep 2023.

Cevik, Muge and Kalil, Andre C. “Omicron Variant: Assessing the Duration of Viral Shedding and Its Implications.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 25 Nov 2022.

“Risk Factors for Severe Illness from Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

Wu, Katherine J. “Why Are We Still Flu-Ifying COVID?” The Atlantic. 28 Feb 2024.

“Masks and Respiratory Viruses Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“Hygiene and Respiratory Viruses Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“Taking Steps for Cleaner Air for Respiratory Virus Prevention.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“About Physical Distancing and Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“Preventing Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

“COVID-19 Treatments and Medications.” CDC website. Updated 15 Mar 2024.

“Testing and Respiratory Viruses.” CDC website. Updated 1 Mar 2024.

Drain, Paul K. et al. “Duration of Viral Infectiousness and Correlation with Symptoms and Diagnostic Testing in Non-Hospitalized Adults during Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Journal of Clinical Virology. 3 Mar 2023.

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

Quick Take

The Ku Klux Klan caused a divisive Democratic National Convention in 1924 but failed to nominate its preferred candidate. A social media post shows a photo of a Klan march to falsely claim it depicts Democratic delegates at the convention in New York. But the photo is from a Klan funeral march later that year in Wisconsin.

---

Full Story

Democrats and Republicans have criticized each other for years with claims about ties to or support for the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, as we’ve previously written.

Historians say the Klan — which was founded after the Civil War and had a resurgence in the 1920s — has sought to achieve power through both parties. The organization ignited a particularly divisive Democratic National Convention in July 1924 in New York City, when the Klan-backed candidate failed to capture the party’s nomination.

A century later, amid another election season, a social media post mislabels an archival photo to misleadingly portray the participants at that Democratic convention.

An Instagram post on March 13 shows a march of Ku Klux Klan members in their white hoods and robes, with text that claims it is an “AUTHENTIC PHOTO OF THE 1924 NATIONAL DEMOCRAT CONVENTION.” The text on the photo also says, “MAKE SENSE NOW?”

The post has received more than 9,200 likes. One commenter wrote, in part: “The Democrats have NEVER voted in the history of America to make life easier for blacks. Only the Republicans have done that.” 

But Linda Gordon, a history professor at New York University, told us in an email that the image in the Instagram post “is not a photo of the [D]emocratic convention” of 1924.

Rather, the photo is from the archive of the Wisconsin Historical Society and actually shows Klan members in December 1924, in Madison, Wisconsin, said Gordon, the author of “The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition.”

The Wisconsin archive describes the photo as “Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing iconic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger.”

Reuters debunked similar posts in 2020 and noted that the false description of the photo has circulated on social media since 2015.

Gordon told Reuters that the Klan’s efforts to influence politics in the 1920s was “pretty much equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.” 

‘A Powerful Force’ in Both Parties

Felix Harcourt, associate professor of history at Austin College in Texas, told us in an email that the Klan was “a powerful force” in the Democratic Party in the 1920s and at the 1924 convention, where there was also strong opposition to the Klan.

“The Klan lobbied furiously to prevent the party from endorsing a platform plank that would condemn the group by name. The organization’s leaders played an influential role in denying Al Smith, the Catholic governor of New York, the Democratic nomination during the contested convention,” said Harcourt, whose research focuses on the Klan’s political power.

The effort to include a platform statement condemning the Klan at the Democratic convention failed. But the Klan’s preferred candidate, William G. McAdoo, did not capture the nomination, which went to John C. Davis on the 103rd ballot.

“At the same time, the Klan was highly opportunistic, with little partisan attachment beyond what served the organization and its bigoted goals,” Harcourt said. “So, the Klan wasn’t just a powerful force in the Democratic Party — it was a powerful force in politics more broadly. It was lobbying Democratic leaders at their 1924 convention. It was also lobbying leaders during the Republican convention in 1924, albeit in a less visible way since the nomination wasn’t really contested and there was no similar effort to put forward a plank denouncing the Klan by name.”

“Eventually, almost everyone running in the presidential election that year denounced the Klan by name, with the exception of Calvin Coolidge, who farmed the responsibility out to his vice presidential nominee, Charles Dawes. And the Klan’s national leadership in turn backed (in a limited way) Coolidge,” Harcourt said.

Coolidge, the Republican incumbent, won reelection in 1924.

“The Klan’s national leadership then very vocally and actively backed Republican Herbert Hoover against Democrat Al Smith in 1928,” Harcourt said. Hoover easily defeated Smith.

In recent years, Harcourt also said, “that opportunism — of the Klan and of the broad panoply of white nationalist groups that have come to largely replace the Klan — has often remained in place. The most prominent example, of course, is David Duke, who has run for office as both a Democrat and a Republican and who has endorsed both Democratic and Republican politicians.”

---

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

Britannica. “United States presidential election of 1924.” Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

Farley, Robert. “Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists.” FactCheck.org. 11 Feb 2020.

Fichera, Angelo. “Anti-Biden Ad Misleads on Race Claims.” FactCheck.org. 23 Jul 2020.

Fichera, Angelo. “Image Altered to Show KKK Members with Trump Sign.” 3 Mar 2020.

Gordon, Linda. Professor emerita of history, New York University. Email to FactCheck.org. 14 Mar 2024.

Gordon, Linda. “The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition.” W.W. Norton. October 2017.

Hamilton, David. “Herbert Hoover: Campaigns and Elections.” University of Virginia, Miller Center. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

Harcourt, Felix. Associate professor of history, Austin College. Email to FactCheck.org. 14 Mar 2024.

National Geographic. “The Ku Klux Klan.” education.nationalgeographic.org. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

Pietrusza, David. “The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.” Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

Reuters. “Fact check: Photograph shows 1924 KKK parade not DNC.” 6 Jul 2020.

Shafer, Jack. “1924: The Wildest Convention in U.S. History.” Politico. 7 Mar 2016.

The American Presidency Project. 1924 Democratic Party Platform. 24 Jun 1924.

Wisconsin Historical Society. “Ku Klux Klan Parade.” 5 Dec 1924.

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

Quick Take

There’s no law in Missouri that prevents pregnant women from getting divorced. But social media posts claim Missouri women “cannot divorce their spouse if they are pregnant.” Legal experts told us a judge may wait to finalize a divorce until after a baby is born to determine custody and other arrangements.

---

Full Story

Nowhere in Missouri law does it say pregnant women are barred from getting divorced.

But a judge handling a case where one party is pregnant may wait to finalize that divorce until the baby is born, which, experts told us, is done in order to consolidate custody and child-support agreements with other end-of-marriage arrangements.

This can happen in other states, too.

But recent posts on social media have revived an old claim that first circulated in 2022, saying, “Women in Republican-controlled Missouri cannot divorce their spouse if they are pregnant.”

That version of the claim was shared by Brian Tyler Cohen, a liberal commentator with a large social media following who we’ve written about before. His Instagram post garnered more than 10,000 likes and was copied and reposted by others, including MSNBC commentator Joy Reid.

Cohen is misrepresenting divorce procedures in Missouri, though.

Either spouse is free to file for a divorce during pregnancy in Missouri. Someone petitioning for divorce must answer eight questions, including the dates of marriage and separation, proposed custody and support arrangements for any existing children, and “[w]hether the wife is pregnant.”

Barbara Glesner Fines, a professor and dean emerita of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, explained to us in an email, “Nothing in the statute permits a court to make any judgments regarding custody or support for an unborn child, so those arrangements need to be made after the child is born. Likewise, there is nothing in the statutes that expressly prohibits a court from finalizing a divorce while a party is pregnant.”

“Procedurally,” she said, “a court could grant the divorce and make arrangements for child custody and support for any children who have been born. Then, if and when another child is born after the divorce, one of the parents could bring a separate action for parentage, custody and support for that child.”

The claim first circulated online in 2022, when news outlets published stories about women in Missouri who had experienced delays in their divorce proceedings due to pregnancy. The articles included comments from some lawyers who attested to the custom of Missouri judges to wait until birth to finalize a divorce, although none of them pointed to a statute or court rule that mandated judges to do so.

“I suspect that the real reason they aren’t granting divorces comes down to efficiency,” Fines said. “If the court waits until the child is born, issues of divorce, property division, parentage, parenting plans, and support can all be determined in one action. If the court determines these issues while a parent is pregnant, there will have to be a second court case after the child is born. The court will have to reconsider all the same complicated factors for custody and support that it did in the first action and it is possible that the custody and support decisions for any children involved in the first action might need to be altered.”

“So, bottom line, what I suspect is happening is that courts are exercising their discretion to schedule hearings and render judgments in a way that is more efficient,” Fines said.

Mary Kay O’Malley, director of the Child and Family Services Clinic at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, agreed. “It’s not a statute in the divorce law — what it is is a practicality issue,” she told us in a phone interview.

Importantly, Missouri is one of 22 states that has adopted a version of the Uniform Law Commission’s Parentage Act, which offers a legal framework for parent-child relationships that is consistent across states.

That act, as adopted into Missouri state law, says, “A man shall be presumed to be the natural father of a child if” the baby is born within 300 days of the end of the marriage “by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or dissolution,” which is the legal term for divorce in Missouri.

So, the law “contemplates that divorce could be granted during pregnancy,” Courtney Joslin, a professor at University of California, Davis School of Law and contributor to the most recent update of the Uniform Parentage Act in 2017, told us in a phone interview.

Joslin explained that California, where she lives and works, also has nothing in state law “that precludes granting a divorce when a spouse is pregnant.” She pointed to the 300-day rule, which is also in California state law.

The recent focus on Missouri in social media posts is likely due to a bill introduced by state Rep. Ashley Aune that would change the law to specifically state that a divorce could be finalized if the couple is expecting a baby. The proposed addition to the state’s existing law says: “Pregnancy status shall not prevent the court from entering a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation.”

A similar bill was introduced in Texas in 2023, but it died in committee.

---

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

Gore, D’Angelo. “NTSB Chair Contradicts Posts That Wrongly Claim Trump to Blame for Ohio Train Wreck.” FactCheck.org. 28 Feb 2023.

Missouri Courts. Dissolution of Marriage. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.

Missouri Revisor of Statutes. Title XXX Domestic Relations. Chapter 452. Last revised 28 Aug 2016.

Glesner Fines, Barbara. Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Email to FactCheck.org. 1 Mar 2024.

Krull, Ryan. “Pregnant Women Can’t Get Divorced in Missouri.” Riverfront Times. 13 Jul 2022.

Spoerre, Anna. “Women in Missouri can’t get a divorce while pregnant. Many fear what this means post-Roe.” Kansas City Star. 20 Jul 2022.

O’Malley, Mary. Director of the Child and Family Services Clinic, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 29 Feb 2024.

Uniform Law Commission. Parentage Act. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.

Joslin, Courtney. Professor, University of California, Davis School of Law. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 1 Mar 2024.

California Law. Family Code. Division 12. Part 3. Chapter 2. Enacted 1992.

Missouri House of Representatives. HB 2402. As introduced 11 Jan 2024.

Texas Senate. SB 80. As introduced 15 Feb 2023.

Para leer en español, vea esta traducción de Google Translate.

Q:  Did the Biden administration secretly fly over 300,000 migrants to the U.S.?

A: As of January, the Department of Homeland Security had admitted about 357,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans it vetted and authorized to fly to the U.S. through a humanitarian parole program. The travelers pay for the flights.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that the federal government is or was paying for plane tickets to fly illegal migrants into American airports from foreign countries?

FULL ANSWER

Readers have been submitting questions like the one above since former President Donald Trump gave his Super Tuesday victory speech on March 5.

While criticizing President Joe Biden, Trump said, “Today, it was announced that 325,000 people were flown in from parts unknown.” He continued: “They flew 325,000 migrants, flew them in over the borders into our country. So that really tells you where they’re coming from. They want open borders, and open borders are going to destroy our country.”

Trump appears to have been referring to news reports that cited reporting from the Center for Immigration Studies, a self-described “low-immigration, pro-immigrant” group.

In a March 4 post, Todd Bensman, a senior national security fellow for the think tank, wrote about the more than 320,000 migrants who came to the U.S. in 2023 through a humanitarian parole program the Biden administration launched in late 2022 and expanded in early 2023. Bensman said the CIS filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to learn which international airports the migrants flew from, and which U.S. airports they flew to, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to reveal that information, arguing that disclosing the airport locations could jeopardize public safety.

Later, the Daily Mail and some conservative news sites that wrote about Bensman’s analysis said Biden was “flying” hundreds of thousands of migrants “secretly” into the U.S.

But the program is not a secret, nor does the government pay for the flights, as that description may suggest. Also, the migrants are vetted by the government before being allowed into the U.S., contrary to Trump’s claim that they were from “parts unknown.”

Humanitarian Parole Program

The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security secretary the authority to grant parole temporarily to certain noncitizens “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”

In January 2023, DHS announced that it was expanding its almost three-month-old humanitarian parole program for citizens of Venezuela to include nationals of Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua. The expansion was one of a few “border enforcement measures” the department said it was implementing at that time to “improve border security, limit irregular migration, and create additional safe and orderly processes for people fleeing humanitarian crises to lawfully come to the United States.”

(A similar parole program was created in April 2022 for Ukrainians affected by the war with Russia.)

To be considered for advance authorization to travel to the U.S., beneficiaries must have a U.S. sponsor who initiates the application process and is willing and able to assume financial responsibility for them once they are in the country. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services then requires the person seeking parole, and any immediate family members they wish to bring with them, to provide biographic information and attest to their eligibility, including being up to date on public health requirements, such as vaccinations.

Individuals provide that information, and a photo, through a USCIS website and the CBP One app, which was launched in October 2020 and is used for other programs and services managed by CBP. Applicants must have a valid passport for travel and pay for their own commercial airfare.

Once they arrive at a U.S. port of entry, they are interviewed by CBP, which does additional screening and biometric vetting, including fingerprinting, and makes a determination. If approved, the parole program allows the migrants to live in the U.S. for up to two years and apply for employment authorization.

There are 30,000 slots for parolees available per month.

DHS has said that nationals of those four countries who do not follow this process, and try to cross into the U.S. without authorization or a legal basis to do so, will be removed or returned to Mexico, which has agreed to take in as many as 30,000 people monthly.

Not a Secret

Bensman, of the CIS, has described the parole program as “secretive” because CBP does not report all details about the program, such as the airports the authorized migrants are flying to and from. “But never have I called it an outright secret government program,” he wrote, saying such a description was a “common misconception.”

DHS issued press releases about the original parole program for Venezuelans and the expanded one for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas talked about the program in a Jan. 5, 2023, press conference, and Biden discussed it in a separate press conference at the White House the same day.

USCIS explains the process step by step on its website, and DHS regularly publishes data on the number of applications, travel authorizations and paroles granted under the program.

In a December update, CBP reported that as of the end of 2023, about 349,000 people had been authorized and vetted for travel to the U.S. through the program. Of those who were approved for travel, 327,000 were granted parole. The paroled figure increased to 357,000, as of January.

“These processes are part of the Administration’s strategy to combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and have kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly,” a DHS spokesperson said in an email to FactCheck.org.

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Sources

“Trump Remarks after Dominant Super Tuesday Performance.” Video. Rev.com. 6 Mar 2024.

Bensman, Todd. “Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at U.S. Airports.” Center for Immigration Studies. 4 Mar 2024.

Bensman, Todd. “Fact Checking the Fact Check: CIS Reporting Stands.” Center for Immigration Studies. 7 Mar 2024.

Caralle, Katelyn. “Biden administration ADMITS flying 320,000 migrants secretly into the U.S. to reduce the number of crossings at the border has national security ‘vulnerabilities.’” Dailymail.com. 4 Mar 2024.

Hathaway, Candace. “Biden admin secretly flew in 320,000 ‘inadmissible’ illegal migrants — admits operation creates ‘vulnerabilities’: Report.” The Blaze. 5 Mar 2024.

McCarthy, Charlie. “Biden Admin Flew 320K Migrants Into US Last Year.” Newsmax. 5 Mar 2024.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Parole Requests Fiscal Year 2023, Second and Third Quarter.” 4 Dec 2023.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “DHS Continues to Prepare for End of Title 42; Announces New Border Enforcement Measures and Additional Safe and Orderly Processes.” Press release. 5 Jan 2023.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “DHS Announces New Migration Enforcement Process for Venezuelans.” Press release. 12 Oct 2023.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. Accessed 11 Mar 2024.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Secretary Mayorkas Delivers Remarks on DHS’s Continued Preparation for the End of Title 42 and Announcement of New Border Enforcement Measures and Additional Safe and Orderly Processes.” Transcript. 5 Jan 2023.

White House. “Remarks by President Biden on Border Security and Enforcement.” Transcript. 5 Jan 2023.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “CBP Releases December 2023 Monthly Update.” Press release. 26 Jan 2024.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “CBP Releases January 2024 Monthly Update.” Press release. 13 Feb 2024.

Spokesperson, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Statement emailed to FactCheck.org. 10 Mar 2024.

With the 2024 Lok Sabha elections barely three months away, political parties have raised the poll pitch and gearing themselves for a high-octane campaign. The southern state of Karnataka is no exception, where in 2023, Congress won the assembly polls securing 135 seats. In the past few months, the BJP has repeatedly accused the Congress government in Karnataka of minority appeasement. Last month, the BJP heightened its criticism of Congress as anti-Hindu while alleging that on the orders of the state government, police personnel had removed a Hanuman flag from a flag post in the Keragodu village of Mandya. However, in reality, the flag post was on government land, on which only the national flag and the flag of Karnataka were permitted to be hoisted.

Now, the BJP has accused the Karnataka government of diverting money from Hindu temples to the welfare of the minority community. Along with this, BJP leaders have also alleged that the Congress government of Karnataka was appointing non-Hindus in the temple trusts by amending the Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, and taking 10% of the donations received by Hindu temples as tax. It is also claimed that according to the amendment, donations received by temples and others can also be used for the welfare of any religious community.

There are four related but distinct claims in these allegations, which Alt News will investigate in this report:

1. Has the Siddaramaiah government started taxing Hindu temples?
2. Is the amount collected as tax on donations to Hindu temples (10%) being used for the welfare of ‘any’ religion?
3. Is money collected from Hindu temples by the Karnataka government being diverted for the welfare of minority communities?
4. Has the Siddaramaiah government amended the laws and introduced a provision to appoint non-Hindus in temple trusts?

News18 anchor Rahul Shivshankar tweeted on February 16 that the Congress government in Karnataka had allocated Rs 330 crore in the Budget for the development of Waqf property, the construction of Haj Bhawan in Mangalore, and the community development for Christians. In the same tweet, he further stated that the state government pocketed an average Rs 450 crores worth of annual donations by Hindu devotees to 400 ‘A & B’ category temples.

BJP MP from Bangalore South Tejasvi Surya quote-tweeted this post, stating that the Siddaramaiah government took money from Hindu temples and was using it to fund religious institutions that were non-Hindu. He added that the money of Hindus was being used as a tool to economically enrich others.

To take money from the Hindu temples and use it to fund the religious institutions of non Hindu faiths is the standard SOP of ‘secular’ leaders like Siddharamiah.

Secularism as practiced by them is not just a stick to brow beat the Hindu, it is also a tool to financially enrich… https://t.co/rYFxSzjadv

— Tejasvi Surya (@Tejasvi_Surya) February 16, 2024

Similarly, many BJP leaders targeted the Congress government of Karnataka and accused it of appeasement of the minority community.

BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya tweeted that the Congress government in Karnataka had amended the Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment Bill in which a provision had been made to appoint non-Hindus to temple trusts. He also alleged the bill stated that Hindu temples would have to pay taxes on up to 10% of the amount donated. Along with this, Malviya said this amendment led to the conclusion that the funds collected by the temple could be used for anything. For example, temple funds could potentially be used to build cemetery walls.

In a shocking move, Congress Govt in Karnataka has amended the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment bill, allowing, among other things:

– to appoint non Hindus to Temple trust. What kind of nonsense is this? Are Hindus incapable of managing the affairs of the… pic.twitter.com/JQDNjGibp2

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) February 22, 2024

Karnataka legislative assembly deputy leader Arvind Bellad tweeted that the state’s new Hindu Religious Endowments Amendment Bill was a blatant attempt by the Siddaramaiah government to seize the wealth of Hindu temples. He claimed that mandating a diversion of money into a ‘common pool’ for unspecified ‘poor and needy organisations’ was indicative of religious discrimination and fund mismanagement. Bellad added that the move weakened Hindu institutions and betrayed the trust of devotees.

Karnataka’s new Hindu Religious Endowments amendment bill is a blatant attempt by @siddaramaiah government to hijack Hindu temple funds. Mandating diversion to a ‘common pool’ for unspecified ‘poor and needy organizations’ reeks of religious discrimination and fund mismanagement.… pic.twitter.com/GQYXAJQBnU

— Arvind Bellad (@BelladArvind) February 22, 2024

Giving a statement on the issue, Union IT minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar said that Rahul Gandhi was carrying out the Bharat Jodo Yatra in the country while his party’s government in Karnataka bought the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Assembly to fund the ATMs of DK Shivakumar and Siddaramaiah. He labelled it the lowest level of appeasement politics and stated that they would oppose the bill.

#WATCH | Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar says, “Rahul Gandhi is holding Bharat Jodo Yatra in the country. His Congress party government in Karnataka has brought the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the assembly to fund… pic.twitter.com/C5h9YV5LV3

— ANI (@ANI) February 22, 2024

Vijender Yediyurappa, son of former CM BS Yediyurappa and current BJP state president in Karnataka, also promoted this claim and called Congress anti-Hindu. Similarly, BJP leader and former Chikmagalur MLA C T Ravi, the party’s spokesperson Sambit Patra, Shahzad Poonawala, along with Right Wing handles Rishi Bagree and Megh Updates were among those who amplified the claims.

Fact Check

Did the Siddaramaiah government begin taxing Hindu temples?

The Siddaramaiah government did not, in fact, introduce the tax on Hindu temples. The Common Pool Fund was started in 2003 when the Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 came into force. In 2011, Section 17 of this law was amended and a provision was made to collect a small portion of the funds generated by high income temples to provide assistance to low income temples under the Common Pool Fund. At the time, BS Yediyurappa was the chief minister of Karnataka, representing the BJP.

• What is the Common Pool Fund?

The Common Pool Fund has been described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The State Dharmarika Parishad has the power to create a common pool fund in which a small part of the income of big temples and grants received from the state government would be contributed for the maintenance of small and low income Hindu temples, and religious institutions of Hindus falling within the Muzrai department. Grants were created to build orphanages for Hindus, construction of cowsheds, the study of the Hindu religion, etc.

According to the amendment made in 2011, the tax rates on temples were as follows:

1. 0% of the income of temples whose annual income was less than Rs 5 lakh.
2. 5% of the net income of temples whose annual income exceeded Rs 5 lakh but did not exceed Rs 10 lakh.
3. 10% of the net income of temples whose annual income was more than Rs 10 lakh.

According to the new amendment:

1. There is no common pool fund for temples whose annual income is Rs 10 lakh.
2. For temples with an annual income between Rs 10 lakh to Rs 1 crore, a total of 5% of their annual income would go to the common pool fund.
3. For temples with an annual income of Rs 1 crore and above, a total of 10% would go to the common pool fund.

A source working in the Karnataka government shared a file with Alt News, which documents the past and present changes in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act 1997 Amendment Bill. (Complete file) It can be clearly seen from the invocation of Section 17 of this law that the Common Pool Fund had been in force since 2003, and was changed in 2011 when BJP’s B S Yediyurappa was the chief minister of Karnataka. Earlier as well, 5 to 10 percent of the total annual income of high income temples used to go to the common pool fund. In the later change, only the income band was revised.

We found an article published on May 9, 2011 on The Times of India website covering how the Hindu Jan Jagruti Samiti protested against the BJP government and urged the Governor to refuse the approval of the amendment.

Is 10% of temple donations collected as tax used for the welfare of ‘any’ religion?

The 10% alleged tax which is being discussed in the viral claims is actually not a common tax collected by the government. Instead, this amount goes into the common pool fund only.

• Can the money from the Common Pool Fund be used for other religions?

No, as per Section 19(2)(ii) of the Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, the Common Pool Fund shall be so administered that contributions and donations made to any institution or institution of any religious denomination or any section would be utilized for the benefit of that particular class or denomination or section only. In other words, the money from the common pool fund of Hindu temples could be used only for the benefit of Hindus.

Is the money taken from Hindu temples by the Karnataka government being diverted to the welfare of minority communities?

Karnataka government’s Muzrai minister Ramalinga Reddy, responding to BJP MP Tejasvi Surya’s allegations, tweeted that Muzrai department money could be used only on temples and minority welfare department money could only be used on minority buildings and religious places. He insisted no money from the temples had been given to the minority welfare department. Along with this, the Muzrai minister called the viral claim false and said that the BJP and its members were experts in misleading the public.

@BJP4India @Tejasvi_Surya

• Money from the endowment department can only be used on temples.

• Money from the minority welfare department can only be used on minority buildings and religious places.

• No money from temples has been given to the minority welfare… https://t.co/pPje3vb5m1

— Ramalinga Reddy (@RLR_BTM) February 16, 2024

Speaking to news outlet South First, Reddy stated that the government had no control over the temples. He explained that budget funds allocated for the Muzrai Department since 2011 were entirely utilised for the development of all categories of temples falling under it. Similarly, the amount allocated in the budget for the Minority Welfare Department was used solely for religious and cultural welfare activities of minorities.

Alt News contacted Rajendra Kataria, the principal secretary to the Karnataka government’s revenue department, for more information. He stated, “There are about 35,000 temples under the Muzrai department. These temples are divided into A, B and C categories on the basis of income and property. Temples with incomes more than Rs 25 lakh are Category A, with a total of 205 temples. Temples with incomes ranging from Rs 5 to Rs 25 lakh are categorised under the B category, consisting of 193 temples. Finally, those generating an income less than Rs 5 lakh are placed in the C category, making up 34,165 temples. The government does not take money from these temples. Money from the donation boxes (Hundi) is drawn by the local committees and deposited in the bank accounts of the respective temples, which is used by the temples for their management, organising programs, development of the temple, etc. Bigger temples have a local official in whose presence the donation box is opened by the committee and this money is deposited in his account only. This money does not go to the government. The work of the Muzrai department of the government is to provide financial assistance to these temples for their development. The government also makes arrangements for the convenience of devotees, such as the opening of guest houses for pilgrims. For example, in religious sites like Tirupati, Varanasi, Srisailam, Mantralayam, and Tuljapur. Misinformation is being spread on social media that the Karnataka government takes money from Hindu temples and uses it to fund religious institutions of non-Hindu religions. A meeting of the Muzrai department has been held regarding this issue and appropriate action will be taken against those spreading such rumours.”

A source working in the government of Karnataka sent us a note on the Amendment Bill of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997. (Complete file) This note explains the changes related and their purpose. It is clearly written in Point 6 of this note that the Archakas and temple employees of these temples needed more money to meet the demands of economically backward C grade institutions under the Common Pool Fund. Therefore, from this point of view, it was considered necessary to revise this amount. This amount would be used only for the benefit of C Group temples along with the Archaks and employees of the temples. In addition, the note has a list of facilities to be provided to the temple employees and Archaks under the Common Pool Fund. For example, scholarship to the children of Archaks, insurance to the temple employees, accommodation facilities, free trips to Kashi and South India for the families of the temple employees, a central information center for the devotees, etc.

It is also clearly stated at the bottom of this note that since the enactment of the Act in 2003, the Common Pool Fund has been used only for Hindu religious institutions and would be used only for them in the future. It has not been used for any other purpose or for people of other religions.

News18 anchor Rahul Shivshankar, while replying to Muzrai minister Ramalinga Reddy, tweeted, “I am not saying that you are diverting the funds of Hindu temples. In fact you cannot do so as per law. What I am saying is why should any state government (even the BJP government) be in the business of using state money to develop maintain and upgrade places of places of worship of any denomination? Why should they be controlling temples?”

With great respect Sir I am not saying you are diverting funds from Hindu temples. In fact you cant do that by law @RLR_BTM. What I am saying is why should any state government (even BJP ones) be in the business of using state finances to develop, maintain or upgrade the Places… https://t.co/vXoCTtgyy0

— Rahul Shivshankar (@RShivshankar) February 16, 2024

Has the Siddaramaiah government amended the law and brought in a provision to appoint non-Hindus to the temple trust?

Alt News noticed the point highlighted by BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya. The provision he highlighted for the appointment of non-Hindus to the temple trust had actually been enacted prior to the formation of the Congress government under present chief minister Siddaramaiah. There have been no recent changes.

• What do these lines state?

The management committee shall consist of at least one person resident in the locality where the institution is situated: Provided that in the case of a composite institution, members of both Hindu and other religions may be appointed.

• What is a composite institution?

According to the information given in point 10A of the definition of the Act, a composite institution denotes a place of worship in accordance with the customs and traditions common and jointly maintained by Hindus and other religions.

• What is the minister’s statement on this issue?

Speaking to Economic Times, Muzrai minister Ramalinga Reddy said that the viral claim about the Karnataka government introducing a provision to appoint non-Hindus to temple trusts was misleading. Only the committees of Baba Budan Giri Dargah in Chikmagalur district, Bhootrai Chowdeshwari and Saadat Ali Dargah in Shivamogga district consisted of members from both Hindu and Muslim communities because people of both the religions prayed at these places.

This bill was passed in the Karnataka assembly, but due to opposition by the BJP and JDS, it could not be passed in the legislative council.

#Karnataka #TempleTaxBill pic.twitter.com/bwtDEEkDGI

— NDTV (@ndtv) February 23, 2024

The Akhila Karnataka Archakas (Priests’) Association supported the bill in a press conference and said that small temples were short of funds. Along with this, it urged the opposition BJP to support the Congress government’s move to divert tax money from rich A grade temples to smaller temples for the uplift of 36,000 C grade temples in the state, categorized on the basis of income.

#Karnataka priests ask for the Temple Tax Bill to be passed!

Claim thousands of temples are desperate for funds. Urge opposition BJP to support Congress govt’s move in diverting tax money from rich temples, towards upliftment of 36 thousand C grade temples in state https://t.co/6UeCfF3ynB pic.twitter.com/8zYt79pzAJ

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) February 25, 2024

At a press conference, the All Karnataka Hindu Temple Archaka (priest) Association said, “Right now, we are receiving a sum of only Rs 5,000 as our salary, which is inclusive of puja materials. No one has raised a strong voice for us like the current Muzrai minister Ramalinga Reddy. The money from the Common Pool Fund will be used only for the uplift of ‘C’ grade temples and priests. We are very happy with this decision.” The association also decided to submit a memorandum to BJP and JD(S) leaders, urging them not to oppose the amendments of the current government.

Related

Encounters on the southern border of those trying to enter the U.S. without authorization have gone up significantly under President Joe Biden. Government statistics show that in the initial processing of millions of encounters, 2.5 million people have been released into the U.S. and 2.8 million have been removed or expelled.

Some Republicans, however, have misleadingly suggested the number released into the country since Biden took office is much higher.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, claimed last month that 8 million “have come in illegally” and “we have to send them back.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made the same claim in a GOP debate in January.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas said on “Fox News Sunday” on Feb. 11 that Biden had “allowed an invasion to occur at our border, almost 10 million migrants have crossed into our country.”

The same day on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said that, conservatively, “3.3 million people have been released into the country who arrived here illegally.” But he also claimed that Biden had a policy of releasing “virtually 85, 90% of any migrant that crossed the border,” a percentage that would translate to well more than 3.3 million.

Other Republicans have said 85% of migrants crossing illegally are being released, a figure that reportedly, according to the Border Patrol Union, was used by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in early January. The 85% figure is close to accurate for apprehensions by Border Patrol for one month — December — but statistics for other months or Biden’s time in office are much lower, as we’ll explain later.

DHS has released several spreadsheets of data on illegal immigration at the southern border. All of the figures in this story come from that data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics, unless otherwise noted.

The statistics can be confusing, and a little messy. For one, the number of apprehensions at the border includes people who have tried to cross more than once. In fiscal year 2021, the recidivism rate was 27%, according to the most recent figures from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That’s up from just 7% in fiscal 2019, which was prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, the U.S. used Title 42, a public health law, to immediately expel border-crossers, but without any criminal consequences — a policy that likely incentivized repeated attempts to enter the country. Biden stopped the use of Title 42 in May, when the federal public health emergency for COVID-19 ended. And since then, the recidivism rate has dropped; it was 11% in August, according to CBP.

Another issue with the DHS data is that immigration cases can take years to make their way through court backlogs. The figures on what happens when migrants have come to the border reflect the initial dispositions, as DHS calls them. In many cases, the final decision on whether a migrant will be allowed to stay or will be deported comes later. The information “does not necessarily reflect final dispositions or removals in all cases,” U.S. Border Patrol says on its website.

“This idea of how many people have been released into the country, how many people have been removed – it’s hard to know for sure, because these are initial dispositions,” Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that researches immigration issues, told us. Many people haven’t had their day in immigration court, she said, so the ultimate results won’t be known until their cases are decided.

Comprehensive figures are available through October. So to keep things as simple as possible, we’ll present numbers for February 2021, the month after Biden took office, through October, unless otherwise noted.

The DHS data show 6.5 million encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in that time frame, a figure that includes both the 5.8 million apprehensions between legal ports of entry – the number typically used for illegal immigration – and a little more than 700,000 migrants who arrived at ports of entry without authorization to enter the U.S.

Of those 6.5 million encounters by CBP, 2.5 million people have been released into the U.S. with notices to appear in immigration court or report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the future, or other classifications, such as parole.

There are certainly others who have crossed the border by evading the authorities. DHS estimated there were 660,000 “gotaways,” or unlawful entries, in fiscal 2021. The agency would not provide an updated estimate. However, a DHS spokesperson told us: “Under this Administration, the estimated annual apprehension rate has averaged 78%, identical to the rate of the prior Administration.” That rate would support a gotaway figure of 1.6 million from February 2021 through October.

The 1.6 million figure would bring the number of those entering or released into the country to about 4.2 million.

The figures used by Haley, DeSantis and Cotton — 8 million or 10 million — are totals of all migrant encounters at the border plus gotaways, and, in Cotton’s case, encounters at the northern border, coastal borders and airports. Cotton’s press secretary, Patrick McCann, told us that those figures showed the senator was correct to say that number “crossed into the country.” But these claims ignore that DHS statistics show 2.8 million of the encounters at the southern border alone resulted in a removal or expulsion directly from CBP custody, and all of the rest of the migrants encountered are not simply released.

Most of those removals – nearly 2.5 million — were immediate expulsions under Title 42.

Total DHS repatriations through October amounted to 3.7 million, a figure that includes the 2.8 million removals directly from CBP, as well as removals by ICE. CBP operates at the border – at ports of entry and between them — while ICE “is responsible for interior enforcement and for detention and removal operations,” DHS explains.

“The majority of all individuals encountered at the southwest border over the past three years have been removed, returned, or expelled,” a DHS official told us. The total DHS repatriations of 3.7 million would support that. The figure is 57% of the 6.5 million total encounters. The one caveat is that the total repatriations could include some migrants who were apprehended crossing the border some time ago and later were arrested and removed by ICE.

We’ll explain what happens when migrants arrive at the border and provide more information on these statistics.

The Border Process

We reached out to the Migration Policy Institute to ask what happens to migrants who arrive at the southern border without authorization to enter the U.S. “The short answer is, it depends,” Putzel-Kavanaugh told us.

We’ll start with migrants apprehended while trying to cross between ports of entry.

In the last several years, Putzel-Kavanaugh said, typically migrants will go into U.S. territory and then wait to be apprehended, with the intention of asking for asylum. They are taken to a processing center – “large, tent-like structures” – for 24 to 72 hours to answer questions and provide biometric information.

“While in custody,” she said, “they’re processed, so to speak … the appropriate disposition will be given to them.” Migrants could be released with a notice to appear in immigration court, processed for expedited removal or asked if they want to be returned to Mexico.

For expedited removal, the U.S. would have to have a relationship with the migrant’s country of origin and space on a repatriation flight. ICE would need capacity to hold migrants pending removal.

In fiscal year 2023, 46% of encounters were migrants from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that regularly accept repatriation of their citizens. Venezuelans made up 10.7% of encounters. The U.S. announced in October that Venezuela agreed to accept repatriations of its citizens, but in January, the country halted those flights.

For families, “Border Patrol doesn’t want to keep children in custody for very long,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said. Families are “likely to be released quickly with an NTA [notice to appear] to appear in immigration court.”

What happens for border crossers “depends on the day, depends on how many people Border Patrol is processing” and depends on the type of people coming in, such as whether they are traveling as a family. Criminal record checks are conducted, including screenings for prior immigration charges and whether someone is on a terrorist watchlist.

The process at legal ports of entry is different. Most migrants without authorization to enter the U.S. who are processed at ports of entry have appointments through CBP One — an app that in January 2023 began accepting appointments for a limited number of migrants who are in Mexico and want to request asylum or parole. DHS calls this “safer, humane, and more orderly” than processing between ports of entry, where migrants cross the border illegally and wait to be apprehended. Migrants with CBP One appointments get a similar screening and could be subject to expedited removal, but the majority are released into the U.S. with a notice to appear in immigration court, Putzel-Kavanaugh said.

With CBP One, border officers already have a lot of information about the person, including contact information and a photo. But appointments are capped at 1,450 per day. For calendar year 2023, 413,300 people scheduled such appointments, CBP says.

So, those who are released into the U.S. are generally saying they have a fear of returning to their home countries and want to apply for asylum, and releases are especially likely if it involves a family.

The capacity of Border Patrol and ICE facilities is also an issue, with detention reserved “for people who are really presenting a national security threat,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said.

There’s also a humanitarian parole program for people fleeing Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, who can potentially stay in the U.S. for two years if they have a sponsor who applies for the program. Through the end of last year, 327,000 people have been granted parole under the program, which launched in October 2022 for Venezuelans and expanded to the other nationalities in January 2023. There are 30,000 slots per month available.

Unaccompanied children are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for children who cross the border on their own.

“It’s this giant puzzle of different agencies … that have to work together,” Putzel-Kavanaugh told us.

For a visualization of the process, the American Immigration Council referred us to a New York Times infographic it helped the newspaper create on what happens to those coming to the border.

Those seeking asylum must prove “that they meet the definition of a refugee,” the American Immigration Council explains in a fact sheet updated in January. “In order to be granted asylum, an individual is required to provide evidence demonstrating either that they have suffered persecution on account of a protected ground in the past, and/or that they have a ‘well-founded fear’ of future persecution in their home country.”

Because of a backlog of cases, asylum seekers can spend years waiting for a court date. As we explained in a story last month, less than 15% of those seeking asylum were ultimately granted it in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, according to Justice Department statistics. But it is taking four to five years for asylum cases to get to court.

The immigration court backlog was 3 million cases in November, a record, according to a December report from TRAC, a nonpartisan research center at Syracuse University.

Border Statistics

As we said, there were 6.5 million encounters at the southern border from February 2021 through October, including a little more than 700,000 migrants who arrived without legal documentation at ports of entry. That’s according to DHS’ Office of Homeland Security Statistics.

About 2.5 million people through October have been released into the U.S. That figure includes 2 million released by Border Patrol, with a notice to appear in court or a notice to report to ICE, or released through prosecutorial discretion or granted parole, which allows people into the country for a temporary period. The 2.5 million number also includes nearly 534,000 paroles processed at legal ports of entry.

In addition to those releases, nearly 367,000 migrants have been transferred to HHS, which is responsible for children who cross the border on their own, unaccompanied by adult family members or legal guardians.

Another 771,000 were transferred to ICE, a figure that includes those subsequently booked into ICE custody, enrolled in “alternatives to detention” (which include technological monitoring and other case management options) or released by ICE.

Of those arriving at the southern border during Biden’s presidency, 2.8 million were removed or returned directly from CBP custody through October, the vast majority of them under the Title 42 public health law during the pandemic. Total DHS repatriations were 3.7 million, which includes removals by ICE.

Under Title 42, the U.S. immediately expelled people encountered at the border, except for unaccompanied children, without giving them an opportunity to apply for asylum — and without imposing criminal penalties. Now that Title 42 has ended, there are fewer expulsions overall, but the number removed from CBP custody under Title 8 has increased. Title 8 laws are the longstanding immigration laws that dictate what can happen to migrants entering illegally and who is inadmissible. Title 8 removals are subject to criminal penalties, including a five-year ban on entering the U.S. again.

In addition to fewer expulsions since the end of Title 42, there is evidence of a decline in the rate and number of gotaways, according to David J. Bier, the associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Since Title 42 was terminated, successful evasions of Border Patrol have declined 79 percent to a daily average of about 500, or 15,500 per month, in January 2024,” Bier wrote, using monthly estimates reported by media outlets.

The gotaway figures can be estimated through observation – such as electronic surveillance of the border – or statistical modeling. “Gotaway data have become more reliable over the past decade because border surveillance has increased dramatically from 2005 to 2023,” Bier wrote.

As we said, some Republicans have claimed that 85% of migrants are being allowed into the country under Biden, citing remarks attributed to DHS Secretary Mayorkas by the Border Patrol Union. (Publicly, Mayorkas said at the time that “the majority of all southwest border migrant encounters throughout this administration have been removed, returned, or expelled.”) But overall under Biden, through October, 35% of those apprehended at the border have been released to await further immigration processing.

Recent Customs and Border Protection figures of those trying to enter the country between ports of entry come close to that 85% number for December, when 77% of the nearly 250,000 apprehensions by Border Patrol were released with a notice to appear in court. But the monthly figures vary. In January, 57% were released with a notice to appear. From June, the first full month after Title 42 ended, through January, 64% of Border Patrol apprehensions were released.

Again, these initial dispositions don’t indicate what ultimately happens.

DHS also publishes lifecycle reports on what happens to migrants over time — since asylum cases and deportation proceedings can take years. The most recent report is for fiscal 2021, which covers less than a year of Biden’s time in office. The latest report shows that cases can be pending for quite some time. It says that 28% of all border encounters from fiscal 2013 to 2021 were still being processed.

Bier calculated release and removal rates for the last two years of former President Donald Trump’s term and the first 26 months of Biden’s, using DHS data, including the lifecycle report, ICE detention statistics and other figures published by the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee. Bier wrote in November that his work showed the Biden administration “has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden.”

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier’s estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

“These numbers highlight how difficult it was even for the most determined administration in US history to expel everyone who enters illegally,” Bier wrote.

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

SciCheck Digest

An international study of around 99 million people confirmed known serious side effects of COVID-19 vaccination. It also identified a possible relationship between the first dose of the Moderna vaccine and a small risk of a neurological condition. Social media posts about the study left out information on the vaccines’ benefits and the rarity of the side effects.

How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?

---

Full Story

COVID-19 vaccines — like all vaccines and other medical products — come with side effects, including serious side effects in rare cases. The vaccines were rolled out to protect people from a novel virus that has killed millions of people globally and would likely have killed millions more without the arrival of the vaccines. There is a broad consensus from experts and governmental health agencies that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks.

Researchers have scrutinized the COVID-19 vaccines’ safety and continue to do so. A study published Feb. 12 in the journal Vaccine reported on an international group of more than 99 million people who received COVID-19 vaccines, primarily finding links to known rare side effects. The study largely focused on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which have been widely given in the U.S., as well as the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was never authorized in the U.S.

“What we take away, is that the Covid-19 vaccination campaigns have been very effective in preventing severe disease,” study co-author Anders Hviid, head of the department of epidemiology research at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark, told us in an email. “The few serious side effects that we have observed in this and other studies have been rare.”

Many popular posts on social media have shared results from the study, some lacking the context that the identified health problems are rare, that most aren’t new and that the vaccines have proven benefits. Various posts made unfounded claims, stating or implying that people should not have received the vaccines, that the risks outweigh the benefits or that the risk of the rare side effects is greater than was reported in the study.

“Hundreds of millions of people were used as lab rats and now the truth that WE ALL ALREADY KNEW can no longer be denied,” said one popular post, referring to the vaccines as “experimental” and “UNTESTED.” The post shared a screenshot of the headline of a New York Post article about the new study, which read, “COVID vaccines linked to slight increases in heart, brain, blood disorders: study.”

“This thing was forced on people who faced almost no risk from Covid,” said another widely read post. “It is completely unacceptable.” The post shared statistics from the paper without making it clear that serious health problems after vaccination were rare and that risk varied by vaccine type and dose.

The Vaccine study confirmed that the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are linked in rare cases to myocarditis and pericarditis, conditions involving inflammation of the heart muscle and lining. The rate of myocarditis was most elevated after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine. Myocarditis risk — which is greatest in men in their late teens and early twenties — was identified via vaccine safety monitoring and first reported in 2021. Based on the current evidence, the CDC says, the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk of these conditions, which improve for most people after medical treatment and rest.

The study confirmed neurological and blood clotting conditions associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. In the U.S., these problems were linked to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, contributing to this vaccine no longer being recommended or available.

The study also identified a new possible safety signal indicating a potential link between the first dose of the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines and rare neurological conditions. This included an association between the first doses of the vaccines and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or ADEM, an autoimmune condition that causes inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.

Hviid emphasized that the researchers only saw these neurological events after first doses of the two vaccines. “We did not see these signals following further doses of these two Covid-19 vaccines, nor did we see them after any dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine which has been more widely used,” he said.

“We are also talking about very rare events,” Hviid continued. “As an example, the association between the first dose of Moderna and acute inflammation of the brain and spine would, if causal, correspond to 1 case per 1.75 million vaccinated. It is only due to the sheer scale of our study, that we have been able to identify this minute potential risk.”

Study Bolsters the Evidence Serious COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects Are Rare

The Vaccine study drew on national or regional health records from eight countries with institutions participating in the Global Vaccine Data Network, an international group that studies vaccine safety. The researchers analyzed health outcomes after around 184 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 36 million doses of the Moderna vaccine and 23 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine. 

The researchers focused on 13 health problems that either had a known association with vaccination or for which there was some rationale to investigate whether there was an association. To determine whether the health problems were associated with vaccination, they compared the expected rates of the health problems — or the number of health events that should occur based on background rates in the regions studied — with the number of events they observed in the 42 days after vaccination.

“This study confirms the primary already detected and validated side effects established by previous literature,” Jeffrey S. Morris, director of the division of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, told us via email, referring to the rare heart conditions associated with the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, as well as the rare conditions associated with the AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. 

Morris said that findings on ADEM — the rare autoimmune neurological condition linked to first doses of the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines — “might be a new safety signal.” 

ADEM involves inflammation to the brain and spinal cord, arising most often in children following an infectious illness. It has a sudden onset and typically eventually improves, with a full recovery in many, although not all, cases.

After the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, researchers observed seven ADEM cases, when they expected two. As we’ve said, Hviid calculated the rate of this side effect — if ultimately shown to be related to vaccination — to be 1 in 1.75 million following the first dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

The data show “this was indeed an EXTREMELY rare adverse event,” Morris said, referring to ADEM. “It is understandable at this incidence rate why it may not have been detected before now, and why a study with 99 million participants like this is important to find even the most rare serious adverse events that are potential minority harm risks of these vaccines.”

The authors of the study wrote that more research is needed into ADEM following COVID-19 vaccination, saying that “the number of cases of this rare event were small and the confidence interval wide, so results should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in future studies.” The authors also wrote that neurological events have been found to occur at a much higher rate after COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination.

The study means that “early warning systems are solid,” said Marc Veldhoen, an immunologist at the Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes in Portugal, in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “To avoid any adverse reaction is not possible, but, identifying those at higher risk may be possible.”

Identifying those at greater risk of side effects can help guide decisions on which vaccines to recommend and what problems doctors should watch for in their patients.

---

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

“How do we know vaccines are safe?” FactCheck.org. Updated 8 Jul 2021.

“Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.” CDC website. Updated 12 Sep 2023.

Yandell, Kate. “Tucker Carlson Video Spreads Falsehoods on COVID-19 Vaccines, WHO Accord.” FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2024.

“Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.” CDC website. 3 Nov 2023.

“How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?” FactCheck.org. Updated 17 May 2022.

Faksova, K. et al. “COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events of Special Interest: A Multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) Cohort Study of 99 Million Vaccinated Individuals.” Vaccine. 12 Feb 2024.

COVID Data Tracker. “COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” CDC website. Updated 11 May 2023.

Liu, Angus. “AstraZeneca withdraws US COVID vaccine application, shifts focus to antibody treatments.” Fierce Pharma. 10 Nov 2022.

Hviid, Anders. Email with FactCheck.org. 22 Feb 2024.

TheBlaze. “Blood clots, neurological disorders, and swollen hearts: Multinational study on COVID vaccines paints a damning picture.” Facebook. 20 Feb 2024.

Dr. Anthony G. Jay (@anthonygjay). “I post a lot of vids but rarely PLUG them WATCH my YouTube vid on this – it’s 6 minutes – before it gets taken down 🤐.” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

bikinibottom_fish 🐟 (@bikinibottom_fish). “Global Study Links COVID-19 Vaccines to Heart and Brain Issues!” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

PatrioticBabe 🇺🇸 (@babedoesthenews). “❗️.” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

RASPY RAWLS (@raspy_rawls2). “… We told yall not to take that shyt but hey wat dew we know 🤷🏾‍♂️ … .” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

Jaimee Michell (@thegaywhostrayed). “I want to know if you think Trump holds any blame, and if not, why not? COMMENT your thoughts BELOW!” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

Liberty Counsel (@libertycounsel). “… “Based on ‘conservative assumptions,’ the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ‘greatly outweigh the rewards,’ the article stated, noting that ‘for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.’” …” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

Shemeka Michelle (@theshemekamichelle). “Remember when they called them “rare” breakthrough cases? Yeah, me too. #slight.” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

Mal’aki (@awake.the.mind). “‘Slight’ will turn to ‘significant’ soon enough. We tried to warn you all but we’re just crazy conspiracy theorists.” Instagram. 20 Feb 2024.

Steinbuch, Yaron. “COVID vaccines linked to slight increases in heart, brain, blood disorders: study.” New York Post. 20 Feb 2024.

Vogel, Gretchen and Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer. “Israel reports link between rare cases of heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccination in young men.” Science. 1 Jun 2021.

Robertson, Lori and Kiely, Eugene. “Q&A on the Rare Clotting Events That Caused the J&J Pause.” FactCheck.org. Updated 6 May 2022.

Kahn, Ilana. “Acute Transverse Myelitis and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis.” Pediatrics in Review. 1 Jul 2020.

Morgan, Hannah J. et al. “Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis and Transverse Myelitis Following COVID-19 Vaccination – A Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis.” Vaccine. 12 Feb 2024. 

“Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS).” Global Vaccine Data Network website. Accessed 23 Feb 2024.

Morris, Jeffrey S. Email with FactCheck.org. 22 Feb 2024.

Frontera, Jennifer A. et al. “Neurological Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analysis of VAERS.” Annals of Neurology. 2 Mar 2022.

Marc Veldhoen (@Marc_Veld). “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals Anything in those anti-vax stories about large scale damage and deaths due to vaccines? No. …” X. 19 Feb 2024.