Category: Fact Check

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.

SciCheck Digest

Given the extra scrutiny and large number of doses, reports of possible side effects to a vaccine safety monitoring system increased with the COVID-19 vaccines. The high number of reports does not mean the vaccines are unsafe, contrary to suggestions made by posts sharing a clip of a Food and Drug Administration official acknowledging the surge.

How do we know vaccines are safe?

---

Full Story

The COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably safe and only rarely cause serious side effects. Despite the good safety record, many people opposed to vaccination continue to point to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, to incorrectly suggest the COVID-19 shots are unsafe.

As we’ve explained before, VAERS is one of several vaccine safety monitoring systems the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use to identify safety problems with vaccines. 

VAERS collects reports of health problems that occur after — but not necessarily because of — vaccination, with the goal of being able to quickly detect a safety signal, which can then be further investigated. The reports can be submitted by anyone and are not verified. The number of reports is known to increase with new vaccines, and the COVID-19 vaccines in particular had augmented reporting requirements.

Yet, the sheer number of unvetted reports to VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines is once again being spun as something concerning by vaccine opponents. Posts on social media are sharing a clip of Dr. Peter Marks, the head of the FDA division that oversees vaccines, testifying before Congress on Feb. 15.

In the clip, Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, who is a podiatric physician, notes that as of mid-February, total reports to VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines were “significantly higher than all other vaccines combined since 1990.” He then asks Marks if the government was “prepared for such an avalanche of reports to VAERS.” 

Reusing Wenstrup’s “avalanche” language, Marks responds, “We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous.” He briefly refers to the staffing challenges the government experienced in trying to find enough people to review the VAERS reports, when the clip being shared on social media ends.

Later in his testimony, Marks said the staffing challenge was related to the review of the reports, since that is part of the evaluation of whether an adverse event might actually be caused by a vaccine. He also explained that the deluge of reports was partly due to the incredibly rapid rollout of millions of doses in a short period of time, and that reporting to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination was highly encouraged. 

“We were encouraging safety reporting because we felt we needed to know any potential adverse events so we could try to investigate and find out if there was something we were missing,” said Marks, who also noted in his opening remarks that “vaccines save the lives of millions of children and adults every year,” and that Americans “can rest assured that vaccines that are authorized or approved are safe and effective.”

But the clip doesn’t include those comments, and the posts don’t explain that.

Instead, the posts, which incorrectly refer to Marks as the FDA director, quote the “avalanche” statement or misleadingly imply the official had made some kind of compromising revelation about vaccine safety.

“FDA director admits to historic number of adverse event reports about COVID vaccines,” reads one popular post. It is suggestively captioned, “We warned everyone. Never forget that.”

Although the posts do not explicitly say the number of reports means the vaccines are unsafe, the implication is clear. Numerous responses to the posts show people misinterpreting the “avalanche” of reports as indicative of a safety problem. “Absolutely unacceptable,” one comment reads. “Why are they still pushing it the thing!!!!! They should be arrested immediately.”

“Dr. Marks was making clear that VAERS reports were not necessarily caused by the vaccine,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, a spokesperson for the FDA, told us in an email. “Additional analyses are required to determine causality, and the mere fact that an adverse event is reported does not indicate it was caused by the COVID-19 vaccine or that it was related.”

Sheer Number of VAERS Reports Not Concerning 

As we’ve explained before, there are several reasons why reporting to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination has been so high compared with other vaccines. This includes the large number of doses — as of last May, more than 676 million doses in the U.S. — over a relatively short period of time, including a rollout that was initially prioritized to older and higher-risk individuals, who would be more likely to have health problems anyway.

Health care providers are also required by law to report far more adverse events following vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine than with other vaccines.

It’s well established that reporting to VAERS surges for any new vaccine — a phenomenon known as the Weber effect — and this has almost certainly been supercharged in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, given the intense interest in these vaccines.

One clue that this increased reporting to VAERS is not concerning is that reporting is high across the board, regardless of the plausibility of an event being vaccine-caused.

“Every event, even those clearly unrelated to vaccines including for example animal bites, broken arms, and sunburn, is reported about an order of magnitude more for these vaccines in the pandemic than any time before,” Jeffrey S. Morris, director of the division of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, explained on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, in response to a post sharing the Marks clip. 

High reporting in and of itself, then, is not a real safety signal. This is why VAERS data is analyzed and reviewed in particular ways, and used in conjunction with other safety monitoring systems, including those that are active rather than passive, as VAERS is, to identify true side effects.

“Active surveillance involves proactively obtaining and rapidly analyzing information occurring in millions of individuals recorded in large healthcare data systems to verify safety signals identified through passive surveillance or to detect additional safety signals that may not have been reported as adverse events to passive surveillance systems,” Duvall-Jones explained.

Indeed, VAERS was useful in helping to identifying myocarditis and pericarditis as the main serious side effects of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare conditions, which refer to inflammation of the heart and its surrounding tissue, are most common in adolescent and young adult males after a second dose.

---

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

“VAERS.” HHS. Accessed 23 Feb 2024.

McDonald, Jessica. “What VAERS Can and Can’t Do, and How Anti-Vaccination Groups Habitually Misuse Its Data.” FactCheck.org. 6 Jun 2023.

McDonald, Jessica. “Increase in COVID-19 VAERS Reports Due To Reporting Requirements, Intense Scrutiny of Widely Given Vaccines.” FactCheck.org. 22 Dec 2021.

“Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1.” Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. U.S. House of Representatives. 15 Feb 2024.

Duvall-Jones, Cherie. FDA press officer. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 23 Feb 2024.

“COVID Data Tracker.” CDC. Last updated 10 May 2023

“Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” VAERS. HHS. Accessed 23 Feb 2024.

Morris, Jeffrey S. (@jsm2334). “Yes the avalanche of reports was amazing as we can see in the publicly available data from the website …” X. 16 Feb 2024.

“Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.” CDC. Accessed 23 Feb 2024.

“Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adolescents and Young Adults.” CDC. Accessed 23 Feb 2024.

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

Quick Take

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has traveled throughout the world seeking support for Ukraine’s effort to resist Russia’s invasion, but he has always returned to his war-torn country. Some social media posts — showing a fake naturalization document — falsely claim preparations are underway to bring him to the United States.

---

Full Story

The war in Ukraine, which began with Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, is approaching its second anniversary, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is facing new challenges domestically and internationally.

Zelenskyy replaced his top general, Army Commander Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, on Feb. 8 after Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive and Zaluzhnyi’s comments that the war had reached a stalemate.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has had trouble in recent months securing U.S. funding to support its ongoing war effort. The Biden administration has committed $44.2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the invasion. But as of late, Ukraine has had problems getting U.S. assistance, as a $60 billion aid package remains stalled in Congress.

Against that backdrop, a video shared on social media falsely claims a report from an anonymous Secret Service agent shows a plan is underway to bring Zelenskyy to the U.S. as an American citizen.

The video, narrated by former Fox News host Clayton Morris, begins with the text, “Is Vladimir Zelensky about to become a U.S. citizen and be shipped off to live in the sunny state of Florida?” Morris, the host of the YouTube show Redacted, has spread other misinformation about the war in Ukraine, as we’ve written.

The video claims to show a naturalization document with Zelenskyy’s photo, and shares audio of the purported Secret Service agent saying, in part, “the Biden administration is making active preparations based on the idea that first, Zelenskyy won’t be the president of Ukraine after next spring, and second, that he and his family will need long-term or permanent security in the United States.”

The claim about Zelenskyy appeared in a Nov. 29 article on the Russia-based website DC Weekly, which has trafficked in disinformation about Zelenskyy and the war, the BBC has reported. Shayan Sardarizadeh, a journalist at BBC Verify, has monitored disinformation published by DC Weekly.

Elements of the naturalization document shown in the video reveal it is not authentic. The document omits Zelenskyy’s middle name, Oleksandrovych, which is required on a certificate of naturalization. The certificate must include “an applicant’s full legal name” which “includes the person’s first name, middle name(s) (if any), and family name (or surname) without any initials or nicknames.”

Also, in an interview with AFP Fact Check, immigration lawyer Marcin Muszynski said that all naturalization certificates issued in 2023 would have been signed by Ur M. Jaddou, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, the document shown in the video is signed by a person named “Haley Burns.”

Steve Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell University, also told AFP Fact Check that an authentic naturalization certificate would include the person’s signature next to the photo. But the certificate shown in the video has no such signature.

In addition, the bio for the author of the DC Weekly story, Jessica Delvin, seems to be fabricated. The image that is supposedly Jessica Delvin is actually an image of New York-based author Judy Batalion.

Zelenskyy has traveled extensively outside Ukraine during the war to ask for support from other countries. But he has been committed to returning and living in Ukraine throughout the fighting.

When the war began, Ukraine’s security service reportedly held an empty train on standby in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, to take the president to Poland or another safe location outside the country. Zelenskyy remained in the city.

---

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

Christensen, Sean. “Online Video Misrepresents Ukraine’s Conscription of Women in War with Russia.” FactCheck.org. 12 Oct 2023.

CNN Editorial Research. “Volodymyr Zelensky Fast Facts.” Updated 24 May 2023.

Congressional Research Service. U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine. Updated 15 Feb 2024.

Czarnecka, Maja. “Fake Zelensky US naturalization certificate spreads online.” AFP Factcheck. 2 January 2024.

Jankowicz, Mia. “Zelenskyy’s aides kept an emergency escape train on standby for him at the start of the war. He never took it.” Business Insider. 24 Jan 2024.

Kiely, Eugene and Robert Farley. “Russian Rhetoric of Attack Against Ukraine: Deny, Deflect, Mislead.” FactCheck.org. 24 Feb 2022.

Lawless, Jill. “Zelenskyy’s European tour aimed to replenish Ukraine’s arsenal and build political support.” Associated Press. 16 May 2023.

Liptak, Kevin. “5 takeaways from Volodymyr Zelensky’s historic visit to Washington.” 22 Dec 2022.

Pereira, Ivan, and Patrick Reevell. “What to know about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.” ABC News. 20 Dec 2022.

Robinson, Olga, Shayan Sardarizadeh and Mike Wendling. “How pro-Russian ‘yacht’ propaganda influenced US debate over Ukraine aid.” BBC. 20 Dec 2023.

Smid, Theo. “Ukraine external support – January 2024.” Atradius. 1 February 2024.

Talmazan, Yuliya. “Zelenskyy replaces Ukraine’s top general in shake-up of military leadership.” NBC News. 8 Feb 2024.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Chapter 3 – Certificate of Naturalization.” Current as 24 Jan 2024.

Zanona, Melanie, Annie Grayer and Haley Talbot. “Speaker Johnson faces critical decision on Ukraine aid as international pressure grows to act.” CNN. 19 Feb 2024.

A new campaign ad from former President Donald Trump makes two misleading claims about Nikki Haley’s opposition to border policies championed by Trump.

• The ad claims Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “joined Biden in opposing President Trump’s border wall.” In calling for a more comprehensive approach on the border, Haley said in 2015 that “just” building a wall was not going to solve illegal immigration.
• The ad further claims that Haley “opposed President Trump’s ban on visitors from terrorist nations.” Haley opposed Trump’s campaign calls in 2015 for a blanket Muslim travel ban, but she supported his more targeted proposal to ban visitors from certain majority-Muslim countries hostile to the U.S.

The ad began airing on Newsmax on Feb. 20, just four days before the Republican primary on Feb. 24 in South Carolina, where Haley served as governor.

Let’s dig into each of the ad’s claims in order.

Haley on Border Wall

The ad cites an article in Time on Feb. 1, 2023, that claimed to document several instances in which Haley “flip-flopped” on Trump, “oscillating from criticizing the 45th President to praising him.”

The story said Haley “slammed his [Trump’s] plan to build a border wall and his other positions on immigration.”

The story quoted Haley at a National Press Club luncheon on Sept. 2, 2015.

“Republicans need to remember that the fabric of America came from these legal immigrants,” Haley said. “If you want to talk about tackling illegal immigration, then let’s talk about it, but we don’t need to attack so many millions of people who came here … and done it the right way, like my parents.”

In that speech, while talking about the need for a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration, Haley did not say that she opposed construction of a border wall, only that building a wall alone was not enough.

“If you notice, they’re all saying, ‘We want to secure the borders.’ That’s a big deal,” Haley said. “What does that mean to you in terms of your commitment to work with Congress to actually secure the border? Don’t say you’re just going to build a wall, because a wall’s not going to do it. You’ve got to have commitment of ground troops, equipment, money, all of that, to bring it together. Then you’re being serious about tackling illegal immigration.”

During a Republican presidential debate in January, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tried to twist those words — as the Trump campaign ad has — into Haley opposing construction of a border wall.

“I said you can’t just build a wall, you have to do more than build a wall,” Haley said at the debate. “It was having the wall and everything else.”

During her presidential campaign, Haley has advocated building more border wall. During a trip to the border in April 2023, Haley pointed to fencing built by the Trump administration and said, “We need to finish what we started.”

Haley on Travel Ban

The Trump campaign ad also claims that Haley “opposed President Trump’s ban on visitors from terrorist nations.”

The ad refers to comments Haley made in December 2015 about then-candidate Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from traveling to the U.S.

“It’s just an embarrassment to the Republican Party,” Haley said. “I mean, it’s absolutely un-American, it’s un-constitutional, it defies everything this country was based on. And it is just wrong.”

Days earlier, Trump had issued a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” which he read at a Dec. 7, 2015, rally. Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice.” A statement released by Trump’s campaign cited polling that indicated “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

After taking office, Trump issued a series of executive orders to follow through on his campaign promise, though none proposed the sweeping reach of that campaign statement. The first, Executive Order 13769 on Jan. 27, 2017, sought a 90-day travel ban on people coming from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Less than a week later, a federal judge halted implementation of the order.

Although it was often referred to as a “Muslim ban” by proponents and opponents alike, the Pew Research Center estimated in January 2017 that the order would affect only about 12% of Muslims in the world.

About a month later, on March 6, 2017, Trump issued a revised executive order, temporarily banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries (this time not including Iraq). That order, too, was initially blocked by the courts, but was ultimately allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to partially go into effect.

On March 16, 2017, Haley — who had since been appointed by Trump as the ambassador to the United Nations — defended that order, saying “it’s not a Muslim ban,” such as Trump had promised during the campaign, and had nothing to do with religion.

“It’s not a Muslim ban. I will never support a Muslim ban. I don’t think we should ever ban anyone based on their religion,” Haley said in an interview with the “Today” show. “That is un-American. It is not good. What the president is doing, everybody needs to realize that what he’s doing is saying, ‘Let’s take a step back. Let’s temporarily pause.’”

“He’s saying let’s temporarily pause, and you prove to me that the vetting is okay, that I can trust these people coming through for the American people,” Haley said.

On Sept. 24, 2017, Trump issued a proclamation that indefinitely banned travel to the U.S. for many nationals of five majority-Muslim countries as well as Venezuela and North Korea.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 26, 2018, that the president had “lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him” under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry to some foreign nationals in order to protect the interests of the United States. The majority found that the proclamation “is facially neutral toward religion.”

As we wrote at the time, none of Trump’s executive actions went as far as his campaign rhetoric.

When he was elected president, Joe Biden revoked all of Trump’s travel ban executive actions. If reelected, Trump has said he will reinstate them.

During a Republican presidential debate on Dec. 6, moderators played a video of Trump at a rally in Iowa on Oct. 16 saying, “No longer will we allow dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs to get residency in our country. We’re not going to let them stay here. If you empathize with radical Islamic, terrorists and extremists, you’re disqualified. You’re just disqualified.”

Asked to respond, Haley said, “Well, I don’t think that you have a straight-up Muslim ban, as much as you look at the countries that have terrorist activity that want to hurt Americans. You can ban those people from those countries, that’s the way we should look at it is which countries are a threat to us.

“You look at what came across the southern border, what worries me the most are those that came from Iran, from Yemen, from Lebanon, those areas where they say death to America,” Haley said. “That’s where you want to be careful. It’s not about a religion, it’s about a fact that certain countries are dangerous and are threats to us. A president has one job, and that’s to keep Americans safe. And that’s what we’ve got to do is make sure that we have good national security in that process, and that’s the way you should look at it, is where the terrorist threats are, how we’re going to deal with it and what we’re doing about it.”

So, while the ad claims Haley “opposed President Trump’s ban on visitors from terrorist nations,” that’s not accurate. Haley opposed Trump’s blanket campaign call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” When, as president, Trump issued an executive order to restrict travel from six majority-Muslim countries — not all Muslims — in order to “protect its [U.S.] citizens from terrorist attacks,” Haley supported that.

---

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. 

The mineral fluoride, at the right dose, has been shown to reduce the risk of tooth decay. Based on studies demonstrating this in children drinking naturally fluoride-containing water, individual cities in the U.S. began to add fluoride to tap water beginning in 1945.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and multiple expert groups endorse water fluoridation as a safe way to reduce tooth decay, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, a Feb. 4 post from independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on X, formerly known as Twitter, made a sweeping claim about fluoride’s effects on the nervous system. “As president. I’m going to order the CDC to take every step necessary to remove neurotoxic fluoride from American drinking water,” the post said.

Kennedy, who has a history of advocating against water fluoridation, accompanied his claim about fluoride’s neurotoxicity with a link to a Law360 article about testimony in a trial that has been unfolding in a San Francisco-based federal district court. The case was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency by nonprofit organizations and other plaintiffs and alleges that fluoridation poses “an unreasonable risk of injury to health” under a version of Toxic Substances Control Act amended in 2016. The plaintiffs are asking the EPA to disallow adding fluoride to drinking water.

Other popular social media posts have also referenced the trial, claiming that “multiple studies confirm fluoride is a neurotoxin that violates the Toxic Substances Control Act and reduces IQ in kids.”

But the data on water fluoridation and neurotoxicity are less clear-cut than social media posts by Kennedy or others make them out to be.

Some studies — many of them done in areas of the world with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water supplies well above the optimally recommended level — suggest a possible association between greater levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy or early childhood and reduced IQ in children. But many scientific experts have said the evidence for this association is weak.

The EPA has argued that there isn’t strong or consistent evidence fluoridation at recommended levels lowers IQ — in line with the general sentiment held by the CDC and various expert groups that water fluoridation is safe.

U.S. Regulation of Fluoride in Water

On a federal level in the U.S., the Public Health Service first recommended fluoridation of tap water in 1962. However, the decision on whether to add fluoride to tap water is up to states and municipalities. As of 2020, around 63% of Americans received fluoridated water.

Exposure to fluoride in early childhood is known to cause dental fluorosis, a condition most often characterized by mild discoloration of the teeth. The AAP says that it is safe to mix baby formula with fluoridated tap water, although consuming fluoride isn’t necessary for babies under 6 months old and comes with a small risk of dental fluorosis.

According to the CDC, experts have concluded there isn’t an association between recommended water fluoridation and any other negative health impacts.

Based on evidence of skeletal problems when people are exposed to quite high levels of fluoride over time, the Environmental Protection Agency has set an upper limit of 4 mg per liter for fluoride in tap water from public water systems. However, the agency recommends that fluoride levels in tap water be kept below 2 mg per liter to protect from dental fluorosis. The fluoride level recommended by the Public Health Service to improve dental health is below these limits — at 0.7 mg per liter.

Beyond fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can also include such items as black tea or swallowed toothpaste. It is generally only present in very small amounts in food, although fluoridated salt or milk rather than fluoridated water are used in some non-U.S. countries.

Draft Report Wasn’t Meant to Evaluate Water Fluoridation Safety

In a Feb. 6 post, also on X, Kennedy elaborated on his fluoridation claims, referencing a draft report from the National Toxicology Program that has been a focus of the case against the EPA. A final version of the report has not been published.

“The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has declared, ‘… the data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ,’” Kennedy’s post said, quoting from an outdated version of a meta-analysis document associated with the report and leaving out some context. A meta-analysis is a type of study in which researchers gather the available data on a topic and combine it to attempt to draw a larger conclusion.

But the NTP report was not meant to establish whether water fluoridation at typical levels was safe and looked at fluoride exposure from any source and at any level. Scientists who reviewed the draft for the NTP expressed concerns that the sentence Kennedy quoted did not make this clear.

The NTP’s reports “are used by other federal agencies as a starting point for further study to determine if there is a risk to humans, and at what exposure level,” a spokesperson from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which houses the NTP administratively, told us via email. The fluoride report “is not a risk assessment, and therefore, does not determine the safety of fluoride.”

Kennedy also claimed in his post that the NTP report had been “hidden from the public.” The NIEHS spokesperson told us that the report is still being revised and that publication was delayed by the NTP director, who tasked a working group with reviewing the many comments and criticisms of the document.

Multiple groups of experts — from both within and outside the government — reviewed various drafts of the report, saying they had concerns that its conclusions were not properly supported. A recurring area of concern was whether the authors of the NTP report had sufficiently made clear that their overall conclusions on fluoride’s effects on IQ might not apply to the lower levels of fluoride found in properly fluoridated drinking water.

“The authors point to their inclusion of studies with low fluoride levels but provide no interpretation of the evidence at these levels,” wrote the working group assembled to review criticisms of the report. “Rather, the authors provide a single statement in the Abstract that encompasses all studies: ‘The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ’. This may overstate the evidence provided by studies with low exposure.”

Evidence on Water Fluoridation and IQ Is Limited

David Savitz, an epidemiologist at Brown University who studies the effects of environmental exposures on reproductive health, led a group of experts that reviewed two early versions of the NTP report. This group was convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which provides independent advice on scientific topics to help the government set policies.

Savitz testified in the trial as a witness for the EPA, zeroing in on four long-standing cohort studies looking at prenatal and early-life exposures to fluoride via various sources, including fluoridated water but also fluoridated salt. These studies evaluated fluoride exposures at levels most relevant to the discussion of water fluoridation. They all provided measurements of fluoride in the urine of pregnant women and assessed their children using cognitive tests.

“There is not at this time a consistent indication of there being an association present, let alone a causal association,” Savitz said during Feb. 7 testimony, speaking of IQ and fluoride exposure in the “range of interest.”

The OCC and INMA studies, respectively performed in Denmark and Spain, found no link between increased urinary fluoride levels and reduced cognitive test scores. A study in women in Mexico, called ELEMENT, found an association between increased urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy and reduced cognitive test scores in children.

The MIREC study, of women in Canada, “in my view is mixed,” Savitz said. “In the aggregate results, which is I think where one starts, it’s very limited in indicating a potential adverse effect.” But it did show “notable sex differences,” he said. The study stated that increased fluoride in the urine of pregnant women was associated with reduced IQ scores in boys.

Other researchers have criticized some of the methods and conclusions of the MIREC study, writing, for instance, that it was unclear whether the researchers planned their assessment by sex prior to starting the study. Doing unplanned subgroup analyses can lead to false-positive results, the researchers wrote.

Authors of some other recently published meta-analyses have also discussed the limited evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity — particularly for people drinking water with the recommended 0.7 mg of fluoride per liter.

A 2021 meta-analysis published in Scientific Reports found that exposure to high levels of fluoride was associated with lower IQ but did not find a link between exposure to low levels of fluoride and neurological problems. The researchers defined high fluoride exposure as above 2 mg per liter and low exposure as between 0.5 and 1 mg per liter. The researchers ultimately concluded that the quality of the evidence was low overall and did not allow them “to state that fluoride is associated with neurological damage,” even at relatively high doses.

Another meta-analysis, published in 2023 in Environmental Research, did conclude that studies indicated fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ in children, potentially starting at 1 mg per liter or lower. But the researchers also noted problems with the quality of the studies that had been done, finding that those showing the greatest negative impact of fluoride were at a high risk of bias. Bias occurs when there is some systematic error that leads a study’s findings to be incorrect — such as confounding factors that would make a relationship seem real when it is not. The single study found to be at low risk of bias did not find a negative effect of fluoride on IQ. 

Finally, a study published in the journal Public Health in 2023, which only evaluated studies in which people were exposed to levels of fluoride 1.5 mg per liter and lower, did not identify a relationship between fluoride levels and IQ in various analyses. “These meta-analyses show that fluoride exposure relevant to community water fluoridation is not associated with lower IQ scores in children,” the researchers concluded.

The Stakes of Ending Fluoridation

In the case against the EPA, lawyers are not allowed to discuss the benefits of water fluoridation. But amid calls to halt fluoridation, experts told us, a discussion of the potential impacts is warranted.

Lindsay McLaren, a professor of community health sciences at the University of Calgary, looked at what happened after the city of Calgary stopped fluoridating its water in 2011. She also has reviewed other research on the impacts of stopping fluoridation. (Calgary will resume water fluoridation later this year.)

“At least in the settings that have been studied, if you cease community water fluoridation, children’s oral health declines,” McLaren said. This particularly affects children who do not have good access to dental care.

“Tooth decay is not an innocuous problem,” McLaren said. “It causes pain, it can get infected, it can make it so that it hurts to eat, kids might have trouble concentrating in school.” She added that in extreme cases tooth decay can lead young children to need surgery under general anesthesia, which comes with known risks.

“The reason why we put fluoride in water is because it has a demonstrable positive impact on dental health,” Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine, told us. In addition to reducing cavities and improving overall dental health, it “has downstream effects as well because bad dental health can cause general health problems, heart disease, etc,” he said. Novella has written about anti-fluoride claims for many years on his blog and on the website Science-Based Medicine, which he founded.

Novella said that while data indicate potential neurotoxicity from fluoride at high doses, fluoridation at recommended levels “hasn’t been shown to be an actual risk in the real world.”

“You have to show that it’s causing an unacceptable risk that’s greater than the benefit at the dose people are actually getting exposed to,” he said, which is not what the data shows.

---

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.

A video related to the farmers’ movement is viral on social media in which farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal states that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity graph has skyrocketed after the Ram Mandir inauguration and reached an all-time high. He appears to call on the listeners to think about how it can be brought down in a few days.

BJP leaders, Right-Wing influencers and media channels shared the video claiming that the only purpose of the farmers’ movement was to tarnish the Modi government’s image.

While airing the same footage on the News18 channel, Rubika Liyaquat stated that the intention behind the farmers’ movement was political.

जगजीत सिंह डल्लेवाल का विवादास्पद बयान
“मोदी का ग्राफ़ मंदिर की वजह से बहुत ऊंचा हो गया है”
“मोदी के ग्राफ़ को नीचे कैसे लाया जा सकता है”
“क्या हम थोड़े दिनों में इसका ग्राफ़ नीचे कर लेंगे?#DelhiChalo #KisanAndolan #FarmersProtests #MSP #BhanuPratapSingh @RubikaLiyaquat pic.twitter.com/GfMqTYWEWS

— News18 India (@News18India) February 15, 2024

While tweeting the viral clip, News18 anchor Amish Devgan wrote that Modi’s graph had skyrocketed after Ram Mandir, and the intent behind the farmers’ movement was to bring it down.

‘राम मंदिर के बाद मोदी का graph बढ़ गया है उसे कम करने के लिए यह किसान आंदोलन है’ pic.twitter.com/hZNtKfPUJm

— Amish Devgan (@AMISHDEVGAN) February 15, 2024

While airing the viral video on India TV, anchor Meenakshi Joshi claimed the farmers’ movement was kicked off to curb the popularity of Narendra Modi. She also claimed that the clip was from a few days before the start of the farmers’ movement.

Zee News anchor Shivangi Thakur also questioned whether the increasing popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the reason for the ongoing protests by farmers regarding their march to Delhi. Later, in the same report, the anchor stated that Zee News did not confirm the authenticity of the video.

Times Now Navbharat also promoted the clip, with anchor Himanshu Dixit claiming that the aim of the farmers’ movement was to harm Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image and bring down his popularity. Meanwhile, national editor of Times Now Navbharat Amit Kumar claimed that the agenda of those who were protesting had nothing to do with farmers. He added that their real intention was to tarnish the Modi government’s image and benefit rival political parties.

India Today also amplified the footage. Anchor Nabila Jamal stated that the comments made by farmer leaders were against the farmers’ real agenda. She questioned why Dallewal was talking about tackling Modi’s popularity when farmers had mobilised over the MSP law. She questioned their real agenda.

Republic TV also aired the video, questioning whether farmers were really protesting for their rights or whether they had some other intention.

News agency ANI tweeted a statement by Haryana chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar reacting to the viral footage. In this video, the reporter tells the chief minister that farmer leader Dallewal said that ever since the construction of the Ram Mandir, PM Modi’s popularity graph has skyrocketed, and it was now time to bring that graph down and that is why the movement started. The reporter then seeks Khattar’s reaction to the footage.

#WATCH | On farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal’s, ‘we have to bring graph of PM Modi down’ remark, Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar says “This is a political statement. Will the people stop supporting PM Modi if such a huge protest is organised? A message is getting circulated in… pic.twitter.com/jmqD39evDH

— ANI (@ANI) February 15, 2024

A number of Right-wing accounts, including senior advisor to the Government of India Kanchan Gupta, who has been caught several times in the past sharing misinformation, tweeted this video with the same claim. Also among them were BJP Chandigarh, Anshul Saxena, Roshan Sinha (@MrSinha_), and Pun Facts.

Fact-check

Alt News performed a keyword search on Facebook using Punjabi keywords to gather information about the viral video. We came across the full-length 26-minute version of this video on a Facebook page named ‘The Unmute’. Scenes from the viral clip appear here at the 18:40 mark. We discovered that the viral video had been doctored.

We found that some parts of the original video had been edited to make it appear that farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal was saying that the purpose of the farmers’ movement was to reduce the popularity of the prime minister and bring down his graph. In reality, however, Dallewal stated that “Modi’s graph (attention) toward the Ram Mandir was at an all-time high. Any politician accepts a demand only when they feel not giving in to it will cause them political harm. They do not prioritize demands which do not have such consequences. What we are saying is ‘how can this graph be brought down’? The graph is very high and we have very few days. If the graph does not come down, our demands will not be accepted.” The context of the original video was tampered with and an edited clip was created by cutting out some parts of the original video, which was then circulated on social media and aired on TV channels without any context. We have spliced the edited video and the original in the comparison below. This clearly illustrates that some parts of the original video were removed and shared without any context, and an attempt was made to give a different colour to the farmer leader’s statement.

Farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal himself issued a clarification on the viral clip and said that his statement had been distorted and was being misrepresented on social media.

To sum it up, a plethora of TV channels, journalists, Right-Wing influencers, the BJP, along with the advisor to the Government of India, circulated an edited video of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal without any context and amplified a misleading claim.

Related