After Arizona’s 15 counties reached a settlement in a lawsuit involving state voter rolls, a Fox News headline sparked misleading social media posts about thousands of noncitizens. 

"Kinda crazy that Arizona Democrats needed a lawsuit to force them to remove 50,000 noncitizens from voter rolls," Rogan O’Handley, a conservative who uses the handle DC_Draino on X, wrote April 13, going on to accuse Democrats of election malfeasance.  

His post included a pro-Donald Trump account’s screen grab of an April 13 Fox News headline that it described as "huge, monstrous, earthshaking news": "SCOOP: Arizona to begin removing as many as 50K noncitizens from voter rolls following lawsuit." 

The original Fox News report misinterpreted what Arizona county election officials agreed to do as part of the legal settlement. Officials agreed to ask the U.S. Homeland Security Department to help verify the citizenship of people on their voter rolls whose citizenship has not been verified. Not all of those people are noncitizens, and the settlement did not include a commitment to remove thousands of people from state voter rolls. 

Arizona’s 46,000 ‘federal only’ voters aren’t necessarily noncitizen or ineligible voters

Arizona’s constitution prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections, and only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. 

Arizona law requires voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Valid proof includes an Arizona driver’s license, an Indian Census Number or Indian Affairs Card Number, or a legible copy of naturalization documents, birth certificate or U.S. passport. 

Federal law, in contrast, requires only that a person registering to vote attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. 

This means that people in Arizona who submit valid documentation of citizenship are "entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections in which they are eligible," but people who only attest to citizenship are known as being "federal only" voters who can vote only in federal elections, according to the Arizona Secretary of State. 

As of April 1, Arizona has 46,017 federal only registered active and inactive voters. That’s about 1% of the state’s 4.46 million registered voters.

Alex Gulotta, Arizona state director for All Voting Is Local, a voting rights advocacy organization, said Arizona’s "federal only" voters registered to vote under the same federal requirements as Texas’ 18 million registered voters, for example. 

In December, Votebeat Arizona, a news organization that reports on voting issues, reported that federal only voters largely include people "living on Native land, on college campuses and at the state’s main homeless campus." 

"Many of these people are young people and or older snowbird people who may live in Minnesota part of the year and Arizona part of the year, but they don’t have an Arizona state driver’s license," Gulotta said. An Arizona driver’s license is the easiest way to establish citizenship, he said. 

Legal settlement: Arizona election officials agree to request federal help 

In September, the conservative political advocacy group America First Legal, working on behalf of  the civic action website EZAZ.org, sued all of Arizona’s 15 counties, alleging they failed "to take action to remove foreign citizens from their voter rolls." The lawsuit argued that county election officials had "ignored" and "failed to perform" state and federal voter list maintenance requirements. It said officials didn’t use all available federal databases — including one from the Homeland Security Department — to help verify citizenship. 

On April 8, the Maricopa County Recorder’s office, which led settlement negotiations, announced the parties reached an agreement. The statement said the office had "initiated communications" with the Homeland Security Department, seeking assistance in verifying "the citizenship status of registered voters who have not provided Documentary Proof of Citizenship."

The parties’ April 9 dismissal notice said that the counties had "agreed to ask DHS to begin responding to requests" to help "verify the citizenship of each county’s federal-only voters." 

Fox News’ story said that the settlement meant county officials were starting "the process of verifying and removing noncitizens from their voter rolls, including nearly 50,000 registrants who did not provide proof of U.S. citizenship." 

Sam Stone, Maricopa County Recorder’s Office spokesperson, told Votebeat Arizona that Fox News’ story was wrong.

Arizona counties did not agree to remove 50,000 noncitizens or 50,000 ineligible voters from its voter rolls. The settlement said only that counties would pursue an additional means to verify the citizenship of registered "federal only" voters.  

As a result of the settlement, Stone said the counties were asking Homeland Security officials "to provide an additional way for county officials to check voter citizenship," Votebeat Arizona reported. 

In the days that followed, Fox News changed its story’s headline to, "Arizona to verify up to 50K people from voter rolls who failed to prove citizenship." The start of the story now says the counties have started the process of "verifying and removing voters," rather than "noncitizens." The outlet also added an editor’s note: "This story has been updated to reflect that the AZ voters on the rolls under examination did not prove their citizenship at the time of registration." 

Fox News did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for information about what prompted the change.

Gulotta said that even cross-checking registered voters’ information with Homeland Security’s database wouldn’t necessarily determine if "federal only" voters are U.S. citizens. The database would only have citizenship information on people connected to the immigration system, such as green-card holders.  

"If you were born on the Navajo Nation, you’re not in that database," Gulotta said. "If you were born in the United States somewhere, you’re not in that database."

With the settlement, county election officials agreed to try to verify citizenship another way, but Gulotta said assertions that 50,000 people who are not eligible to vote are being removed from voter rolls because of the lawsuit are "absolutely untrue."

Our ruling

An X post said Arizona Democrats "needed a lawsuit to force them to remove 50,000 noncitizens from voter rolls." 

This mischaracterized what Arizona county election officials agreed to do as part of the legal settlement. Officials agreed to ask the U.S. Homeland Security Department to help verify the citizenship of people on their voter rolls whose citizenship has not been verified. 

Not all of those people are noncitizens, and the settlement did not include a commitment to remove thousands of people from state voter rolls. 

We rate this claim False.

A letter attributed to former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., resonated with Facebook users who criticized the Democratic Party’s response to the Trump administration.

"Dear Democratic Party, I need more from you," the letter starts. "You keep sending emails begging for $15, while we’re watching fascism consolidate power in real time."

An April 16 Facebook post shared the letter and added the text, "Like her or not, former Congressperson Liz Cheney has a plan… and we're now all on the same side. She suggests actionable steps we MUST take to win our country back from the fascists." The post gained 26,000 shares. 

The letter suggested various actions Democrats should take, such as "form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition," "fund state-level resistance infrastructure" and "create a digital safe haven for whistleblowers and defectors."

But there’s no proof Cheney wrote this letter. PolitiFact did not find the text on Cheney’s social media accounts or public appearances. A Facebook user with the display name "Pru Pru" posted the letter April 14 in a Facebook group named "Liz Cheney/Adam Kinzinger Against Trump."

The post’s history showed "Pru Pru" edited the post April 17, saying, "Hi, my name is Pru. I’m the author. Yes you may share and disseminate this freely. You can cite me as the author: Dr. Pru Lee. Liz Cheney is part (of) the name of this group, not the author folks."

Lead Stories and Snopes also reported that Cheney did not write the letter.

Cheney didn’t write a letter to the Democratic Party suggesting actions to take against the Trump administration. We rate that claim False.

Responding to concerns about a bill that would require proof of citizenship to vote, some Republicans have said an eligible voter needs only a Real ID. 

But in 44 states, that’s not a solution. 

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House on April 10 by a 220-208 vote. A priority of Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump, it would require in-person proof of citizenship, such as a U.S. passport or a combination of a driver's license and birth certificate, to register to vote.

Republicans say the SAVE Act — which has a high 60-vote hurdle to clear in the Senate — is necessary to ensure that noncitizens don’t vote in U.S. elections. Federal laws already prohibit noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and cases of noncitizens voting are extremely rare.

Democrats denounced the bill as a threat to voting rights, criticizing the required paperwork as burdensome; about half of Americans don’t have passports, for example. Republicans accused Democrats of exaggerating the burden.

"To the people who are concerned about married women being able to register (to vote) there's this thing in the United States, every state does it now, called Real ID," said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., in an April 10 NewsNation interview. "As long as you have a Real ID, which virtually every American has to have today, it should be easy for you to register to vote." 

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and several social media users made similar statements about Real IDs allowing people to travel and vote. 

Real IDs are federally compliant, state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards that require documentation including a Social Security card and proof of citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain. Congress passed a 2005 law requiring state-issued IDs to meet federal minimum security standards following a 9/11 Commission recommendation.

A Real ID card is typically marked with a black or gold star. About 56% of American IDs were Real ID compliant in January 2024, but many people are rushing to get Real IDs before a May 7 deadline after which a non-Real ID driver’s license, for example, will not be sufficient to board domestic flights. (Some states, such as Illinois, are saying "Real ID can wait" because of high demand.)

However, not every Real ID meets SAVE Act requirements to prove citizenship. The SAVE Act accepts only Real IDs that indicate whether a person is a citizen, which most do not.

Further, Real IDs can be issued to noncitizens with lawful status, including permanent residence, temporary protected status, refugees, asylum applicants and people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Homeland Security Department’s website says. 

Five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer a version of Real ID that indicates whether a person is a U.S. citizen, called an enhanced driver’s license. These licenses are offered at an additional fee, so not every Real ID in those states is compliant with the SAVE Act. Homeland Security officials have been working since 2008 to bring the enhanced ID program to all states. 

One more state, Idaho, in 2023 began offering IDs with an optional citizenship marker, although it’s unclear whether all are Real ID compliant. 

Roughly 14% of the U.S. population lives in those six states. Florida, where Donalds is running for governor, does not show citizenship on its Real ID. 

PolitiFact found no evidence that the remaining states issue Real IDs that comply with the citizenship proof required by the SAVE Act. 

Thirty-six states already have some form of voter ID law requiring identity verification at the polls, but the SAVE Act would implement hurdles in every state at an earlier step — voter registration. For most states, that is new terrain. 

"There is only one state in the U.S., Arizona, that has experience with proof-of-citizenship to register to vote," said Lori Minnite, a Rutgers University political science professor and expert in voter fraud. 

For state and local elections, Arizona accepts state IDs as proof of citizenship after comparing the driver’s license number to existing information in its Department of Transportation database. The physical IDs are no different than those issued to noncitizens. It is unclear whether such an ID, only distinguishable from a noncitizen ID when referenced against internal state data, would count as "indicating" citizenship under the SAVE Act.

The SAVE Act’s author, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, acknowledged in a recent hearing on the bill that only a few states offer compliant licenses, and he hoped more would follow: "We believe, right, that the structure is put in place now that allow — I think there’s at least five states that do have the citizenship status as part of the Real ID — encourage more states to do so, right? That would be part of the goal here."

In 2023, Ohio passed a law to offer enhanced driver's licenses, but it is not yet accepting applications. Iowa and Montana are considering bills to add a citizenship marker on IDs. 

Neither Donalds nor Roy responded to requests for comment.  

Beyond Real ID, other ways to verify identity pose challenges

For the majority of Americans who don’t live in Idaho or one of the few states with enhanced IDs, the SAVE Act says they can prove citizenship with a valid U.S. passport; a military ID card and a military service record showing place of birth; or a government issued photo-ID that shows place of birth.

Those documents, or a Real ID that indicates citizenship, are the only ones that can prove citizenship on their own under the bill. Without one of those, a person must show a driver’s license or identification along with another document showing birthplace, such as a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, consular report of birth abroad or final adoption decree.

All documents must be presented in person. 

Any mismatch between documents and someone’s current identification cards could disrupt voter registration. Mismatches are common for people who change their names following marriage.

In the same hearing, Roy said the SAVE Act would not affect people currently registered to vote. 

He added: "If they have an intervening event or if the states want to clean the rolls, people would come forward to register to demonstrate their citizenship so we could convert our system over some reasonable time to a citizenship-based registration system."

Jonathan Diaz, director of voting, advocacy and partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization that supports voting rights, said he believes the SAVE Act would apply to any updates to current registration or reregistration. 

As prominent Democrats warned that the bill would make voting harder for millions of married women, SAVE Act supporters said the bill addresses the needs of people with name changes by leaving it up to the states to decide what documentation would be required to resolve document discrepancies. It directs each state to "establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation" to establish citizenship if the person’s documents don’t include matching information.

Minnite called this language ambiguous: "Could a married woman who does not have a passport and who changed her name use a marriage certificate to prove her citizenship? The SAVE Act is not clear."

Diaz said, "Different states could have different standards and different degrees of proof needed, which will be really hard for voters to navigate."

Our ruling 

Donalds said under the SAVE Act, "as long as you have a Real ID … it should be easy for you to register to vote." Most Real IDs are not compliant with the citizenship proof required under the SAVE Act. PolitiFact identified just six states that offer Real IDs that show citizenship, and five of them require an additional fee for that type. 

People living in the remaining 44 states would need other forms of documentation to register to vote under the SAVE Act, such as a U.S. passport, a military service ID and record, or a birth certificate with a drivers license. 

Donalds’ statement has an element of truth because in a handful of states, people have access to Real IDs that would be sufficient to register to vote under the SAVE Act. But he ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate the statement Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

As President Donald Trump’s tariffs dominated headlines, former Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz talked about his party’s messaging on the economy.

Many Americans have a sense of economic angst that the Trump campaign tapped into before the 2024 election, Walz told CNN’s Jake Tapper on April 6. Democrats, he argued, need to do a better job reaching those voters.

"They're concerned that their economic future is so precarious it could slip out from under them," Walz said. "Less than half of Americans have $1,000 in savings."

Research shows Americans do not feel financially stable, but Walz exaggerated the health of Americans’ savings accounts by giving the impression that nearly half have anemic reserves.

Walz’s team did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment. We found data on the topic in an August 2024 Forbes survey, which reported that the share of Americans with $1,000 or less in their savings accounts is closer to 28%.

Around one-third of Generation Z and millennials have less than $1,000 in their savings, the survey results showed. The number decreases for older generations: 27% of Generation X and 20% of baby boomers have less than $1,000 in savings. However, a little more than half of both generation groups reported having less than $5,000 saved. 

Other surveys had similar findings.

The 2023 Federal Reserve Bank’s most recent consumer finance survey based on 2022 data concluded that Americans’ median value of savings that year was $39,000, not including equities and real estate . It also found that 99% of families had at least one bank account, stock, bond or other type of financial asset as savings.

The data did not control for savings accounts specifically. But in transaction accounts — which can include savings, checking and money market accounts — the median holding amount was $8,000.A February 2025 survey by Bankrate, a consumer financial services company, found that 40% of Americans said they would use their savings in the event of a $1,000 emergency expense — but that 41% wouldn’t have enough savings to cover the cost. It also found that about 37% of people dipped into their savings in the past year. Of that 37%, more than half withdrew more than $1,000.

Although Walz’s statistic is exaggerated, surveys corroborate the notion that Americans are struggling to save. 

"We are essentially a paycheck-to-paycheck nation," Bankrate Senior Economic Analyst Mark Hamrick said in a press release. "Fewer Americans have the equivalent of a financial safety net to cover inevitable unexpected expenses, despite low unemployment and steady growth. This is one of the consequences of elevated prices stemming from inflation."

Forbes found that respondents cited the rising cost of living as the main reason they couldn’t save more. 

Personal finance experts recommend saving at least three months’ of living expenses. Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless said most advisers say a person’s emergency savings balance alone should be about three to six months of usual monthly spending.

Bankrate found that 41% of Americans have at least three months’ worth of expenses in savings.

Our ruling

Walz said, "Less than half of Americans have $1,000 in savings."

The percentage of Americans with $1,000 or less in savings accounts isn’t close to half. A 2024 Forbes survey found it's 28%, or closer to one quarter.

Other recent data from Bankrate and the Federal Reserve paints a rosier picture of Americans’ financial savings than Walz did, but personal finance experts say most Americans do not have enough savings.

Walz’s statement has an element of truth but his numbers are inaccurate. We rate his claim Mostly False.

After authorities announced Cody Balmer, 38, was a suspect in the April 13 arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor’s residence, social media users combed through his online posts to find anything that might explain his motive.

Multiple social media users circulated an image of Balmer that included anti-Trump profanity as proof he held liberal political beliefs. 

"This is the democrat who set Governor Shapiro’s house on fire," Philip Anderson wrote on X April 13, sharing a photo of a man wearing an industrial dust mask with a cigarette poked through it. Red text on the photo read "F--- Trump." 

Anderson, of Smith County, Texas, was criminally charged for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. In January, the court dismissed the case at the Justice Department’s request. The photo was also shared on Facebook. 

PolitiFact found a Facebook account for a person named Cody Balmer whose birthday matched the date of birth listed in the criminal complaint against Balmer. 

The last public post on the page was in July 2023. Years earlier, on April 16, 2020, the account shared the same photo of a bearded man wearing the face mask with a cigarette poking out.

The 2020 Facebook post did not include red, anti-Trump text, however. The only words that accompanied the photo were in the post’s caption, which read: "Stay safe out there."

Balmer’s political affiliations are unknown. The Pennsylvania Department of State website shows Balmer is an active voter but claims no party affiliation.

Balmer’s criminal history included traffic violations, theft and forgery charges that resulted in a probation sentence and a pending 2023 assault charge for which he was set to appear in court this week, The Associated Press and USA Today reported.

His mother, Christine Balmer of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told AP that Balmer had bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and she’d been trying to get him mental health help. She told CBS News that her son is "mentally ill and he went off his medication" before the attack.

Balmer faces charges including criminal homicide/attempted murder, terrorism and aggravated arson after authorities say he scaled a fence and intentionally set fire to the governor’s residence. Officials have not announced a motive for the attack. 

We rate posts saying Balmer posted a photo of himself that said "F--- Trump" False.

A viral TikTok post said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, has been conning Social Security, without offering proof.

"Jasmine Crockett says she 'simply forgot' to inform Social Security that her grandmother died in 2012," an April 5 TikTok post said, sharing a photo of Crockett. "She's been collecting $2,600 a month for 13 years."

The claim took off in English and Spanish. A listener called a Spanish radio station in Miami on April 10 to ask the host about its veracity. 

But this is a recycled claim that originated from a self-described satire website. We found no credible news reports or public statements from Crockett about this claim. Crockett’s office did not respond to our questions.

The TikTok’s story originated with America’s Last Line of Defense, a Facebook page that posts satirical content. On April 4, the account shared a Facebook post linking to an affiliated fake news site with the headline, "Jasmine Crockett ‘Forgot’ to Report Grandmother’s Death, Collected Social Security for 13 Years."

"Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is in hot water after a shocking revelation that she has allegedly been collecting $2,600 a month in Social Security payments for her late grandmother, who has been, inconveniently for her defense, dead since 2012," the satirical story said. "When confronted, Crockett reportedly shrugged and said, ‘Oops.’"

On April 10, America’s Last Line of Defense made a new post that contained the same image on the video from the TikTok.
But the source of this claim is Dunning-Kruger Times, another site within the parody network.

We have seen the same false claim lobbed against U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. We rated that Pants on Fire! 

We’ll do the same for this claim involving Crockett. It’s Pants on Fire!

Soon after hundreds of thousands of people gathered in cities across the world to protest the Trump administration’s government program cuts, critics of the effort cast doubt on its authenticity.

"Exposed: Anti-Elon protests are staged & paid — bussed-in, scripted, clocked-out," conservative influencer Mario Nawfal posted April 6 on X. The post refers to billionaire and White House adviser Elon Musk, who was one focus of the protests. Musk leads Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which is a cost-cutting agency.

More than 1,000 "Hands Off" protests took place in 50 states and abroad, but Nawfal’s post focused on the Washington, D.C., event: "The anti-Elon, anti-DOGE, anti-Trump protests in D.C.? They aren’t grassroots. They are payroll-driven theater," the post said.

We examined Nawfal’s post and others like it and found the supposed evidence they presented that the "Hands Off" events were a pay-for-protest job did not hold up to scrutiny. Many posts misleadingly framed normal aspects of event organizing, such as printed signs and coordinated transportation, as signs of a paid conspiracy. Some posts mistook a viral satire video as fact, and others misidentified a paid signature gatherer for a protester.

"We don’t pay protesters. We don’t ‘stage’ protests," said Sarah Dohl, the chief campaigns officer of Indivisible, a nonprofit which has been a focus of claims about paid protesters. "What we do is support a nationwide network of grassroots organizers working to protect democracy."

We found no evidence that April 5 protesters in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere were paid to protest. Nawfal did not respond to a request for comment.

"Evidence" including signs, buses shows normal event organizing 

Nawfal’s post included four videos, three of which were first shared by Laura Loomer, a conservative activist and podcaster who has promoted conspiracy theories, including that 9/11 was "an inside job." Some of the videos appear to show a March for Palestine that was happening in Washington, D.C., the same day as the "Hands Off" protest. Nawfal’s post said protestors had "pre-made signs handed out assembly-line style."

Two of the videos showed large groups of people walking down Washington, D.C.’s 15th Street. Several protesters in the group carried signs that said, "Socialism Beats Fascism." Those signs match the political action group Democratic Socialists of America’s signs from the April 5 protest. That group did not respond to a request for comment.

Distributing signs at protests is not abnormal and not a sign that the people carrying them are paid, said Celina Su, a  City University of New York political science professor and expert in grassroots organizing.

"We want the grassroots to be somewhat organized," Su said. "This doesn't mean that they're in group think, like drinking the Kool Aid of propaganda. This means that there's been meetings talking about what their campaign priorities and they're like, ‘Yeah, let's focus on this.’"

Nawfal’s post also said "buses rolled in packed with hired protesters," and two of his other video clips focused on buses. One showed people disembarking a bus. Another showed a bus’s luggage area where two handmade signs appeared to have been stored. 

It’s not uncommon for people to ride buses into a big city — where parking can be both scarce and expensive — for a major event. "Those charter buses, to me, prove that this is a widespread sentiment, not that they were paid to express this sentiment," Su said.

Some protesters organized buses to travel into Washington, D.C., to participate in both the "Hands Off" protest and the March for Palestine. Local groups set up websites for people seeking to coordinate their travel to the events, including ways participants could pay for their own tickets. 

PolitiFact contacted several groups that helped organize April 5 events, including MoveOn, Indivisible and 50501, which was specifically formed to protest the second Trump administration. Each organization said it did not pay protesters to participate and was unaware of any organization that would. Similarly, the groups said they neither paid for nor organized buses to bring protesters to Washington, D.C. 

The last video in Nawfal’s post featured Bronson Alford, a conservative influencer who was filming interviews for Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group. 

In the video, Alford said that after he left for a 30 minute break, he returned to find the crowd had dispersed. "This place is dead… not a single protester in sight," he said in the video. "And just 20 to 30 minutes ago, it was completely packed with protesters."

He concluded the crowd’s absence meant "they were paid and their time was gone" or they are a "cult, and they all left at once." Nawfal had said in his post that "protesters all left at once — just like a shift change."

Turning Point USA did not respond to our questions about what time Alford’s video was filmed, but the landmarks seen in the video show he was standing near the Hirshhorn Museum, about a 15-minute walk from where the protest was focused, around the Washington Monument. 

Lastly, Nawfal linked to his March 31 X post that said one of the "Hands Off" event organizers, the progressive advocacy group Indivisible, had offered to pay people to protest Tesla and Musk. The post included screengrabs of Indivisible’s website with a link to an "Event Reimbursement Form."

The screenshot was from Indivisible’s congressional recess campaign, which encourages people to organize in their communities when Congress is on break. It offers groups that register with Indivisible "the option to apply for up to $200 in reimbursement for event-related costs," Dohl told PolitiFact in an email.

"Reimbursements require receipts, are submitted after the event, and only cover actual organizing expenses like venue rentals, printed flyers, posterboard, snacks, bullhorn batteries, or accessibility support like (American Sign Language) interpreters," Dohl said.

So far in 2025, Indivisible has distributed about $7,000 in reimbursements, during the February and March recess periods, Dohl said. There were no reimbursements distributed for the April 5 marches because they happened outside the April 12 to 27 congressional recess period.

Indivisible has a toolkit with downloadable signs and provided free event boxes to 200 "Hands Off" protester groups; the boxes included placards, stickers and paint pens. 

Su said premade signs, organized buses, reimbursements for expenses show organizers’ attempts to make political engagement more accessible.

Satire, a paid canvasser and buses misleadingly framed as showing ‘paid’ protesters  

We examined other social media posts sharing claims that protesters outside of Washington, D.C., were paid and found they were unsubstantiated. 

• Texas State University buses were privately hired: Several social media users, including a Texas state representative, shared a video taken in a parking lot in New Braunfels, Texas, where people boarded buses with Texas State University branding. "Why are Texas State University buses being used to transport protesters against Trump, Elon, and DOGE? Who’s paying for them?" posted one X user. Texas State University issued a statement that the private company that runs the university’s bus system is allowed to charter its buses. A private group chartered the buses, not the university. 

• Viral TikTok of "paid protester" is satire: Other social media users shared a TikTok video of a woman who claimed to be a paid protester. But this video was from a self-described satire account. Its creator later removed the video and posted another video explaining that the first one was not real. 

• Paid canvasser, not protester in Utah: A TikToker who goes by Christian Drain posted a video taken outside the Utah State Capitol, featuring a man wearing a hoodie and holding a clipboard being questioned by someone off camera about how much he was being paid. The video’s caption read, "George Soros agitator admits he gets paid to protest." But the man in the video was a paid canvasser gathering signatures for the Protect Utah Workers campaign, not being paid to protest. In the video he is wearing a lanyard that says "paid circulator," and he has a badge that shows he was working for Landslide Political LLC, a political consulting group that hires canvassers.

• Craigslist posts offer cash to sell merchandise, 50501 denies affiliation: A screenshot of Craigslist offers circulated online, including by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., as evidence that protesters were paid. But the screenshots show the Craigslist posts offering cash for people to sell protest-related merchandise, not to protest. Several of the posts mentioned 50501 was organizing the protests, but a 50501 spokesperson told PolitiFact that neither its Los Angeles nor Washington, D.C., organizing teams had knowledge of the ads, and it received no proceeds from anything sold. 

Concerns about paid protesters aren’t without merit. There are some prominent examples of it happening, and it has a term — astroturfing — referring to fake "grass" roots. 

However, "most in-person protests are less likely to be astroturfing," Su said. "If it's happening in unexpected places, in different sizes, if you see a diversity of folks," of different ages for example, those are all signs it is an authentic grassroots campaign. 

Our ruling

Social media posts claimed videos and photos showed Washington, D.C., protests against Musk are "staged & paid — bussed in, scripted, clocked out." 

PolitiFact examined numerous social media posts presenting supposed evidence that April 5 protesters were paid. None held up to scrutiny. 

Some videos misleadingly framed normal protesting and organizing activities — including similar signage and coordinated transportation — as evidence that protesters were paid.  An expert said those activities aren’t signs that people are paid to protest; they show organizers’ attempts to make political engagement more accessible.

Other supposed evidence included satire videos and Craigslist ads to sell merchandise.

We found no evidence to support the claim that April 5 protesters in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere, were paid. We rate this claim False.

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

While hosting race car drivers at the White House, President Donald Trump explained his decision to pause country-by-country tariffs, while raising tariffs on goods imported from China, which are now 145%. 

Trump focused on the importance of weaning the U.S. off Chinese goods.

"China was by far the biggest abuser in history," he said at the April 9 event. "Somebody had to do it. They had to stop because it was not sustainable. Last year, China made $1 trillion off trade with the United States. That’s not right."

Trump repeated the $1 trillion figure five times over the week, describing it as both a "surplus" for China and a loss or "deficit" for the U.S. 

China did not make $1 trillion off trade with the United States in 2024.

The best estimate for China’s 2024 trade surplus with the U.S. is between one-quarter and one-third of that amount, depending on what metric is used.

We looked at 2024 trade data for goods alone and for goods and services. Although the total value of Chinese exports to the U.S. and the U.S. trade deficit with China are both well above what they were more than 15 years ago, none of the figures come close to $1 trillion.

In 2024, the U.S. imported $439 billion in goods from China, and it exported $144 billion there. That left the U.S. with a $295 billion trade deficit for goods alone.

For the broader measure of goods and services, the U.S. imported $463 billion from China in 2024, and exported $199 billion. That’s a trade deficit of $263 billion in goods and services.

Neither the value of China’s exports to the U.S., nor the U.S. trade deficit with China, approached  $1 trillion in 2024.

Those numbers also haven’t come close to $1 trillion in previous years. 

The largest value of goods imported from China in any single year was $538.5 billion, in 2018 during Trump’s first administration.

And the widest annual U.S. trade deficit with China in goods and services was $377.7 billion, also in 2018.

The White House did not provide a source for the $1 trillion figure, instead sharing a statement that criticized Democrats’ response to Trump’s action on China.

Our ruling

Trump said in 2024, "China made $1 trillion off trade with the United States."

One way to look at his statement is to consider the value of Chinese exports to the U.S. In 2024. China exported $439 billion in goods to the U.S., less than half of Trump’s figure.

Another way is to consider the size of the United States’ trade deficit in goods with China. In 2024, that was $295 billion, less than one-third of what Trump said.

Adding in the U.S. trade in services to the trade in goods leaves a $263 billion deficit with China.

We rate the statement False.

As President Donald Trump targeted one of his first-term government officials, he also repeated the long debunked falsehood that the "2020 election was rigged and stolen."

In an April 9 memo, Trump directed his administration to strip security clearance from Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and investigate Kreb’s time at CISA. 

Trump said Krebs "weaponized" his authority and "censored speech."

"Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines."

Trump repeated that the election was rigged while he signed the memo in the Oval Office on April 9.

"This guy, Krebs, was saying, ‘Oh, the election was great. It was great.’ Well, it’s been proven that it was not only not great ... It was a very corrupt election. They used COVID to cheat," Trump said.

"Almost right from the beginning and (Krebs), he’s tried to make the case that this election was a safe election," Trump continued. "I think he said this is the safest election we’ve ever had. And yet, every day you read in the papers about more and more fraud that’s discovered."

The 2020 election was neither rigged nor stolen. Joe Biden won. States certified the results, Congress accepted the results and Biden was inaugurated in January 2021.

Trump’s repeated falsehoods about the 2020 election are not only about revenge and backward looking. He has used falsehoods about the election to push for changes to voting laws. 

Trump fired Krebs in 2020 for affirming the election’s safety 

As the senior Trump administration official responsible for election security and infrastructure, Krebs and his agency affirmed multiple times the 2020 election’s safety.

"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees, said in a Nov. 12 statement. "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Krebs’ agency released the statement, but his name was not on it. 

Five days later, on Nov. 17, 2020, Krebs posted on X citing a letter signed by 59 election security experts: "‘In every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.’"

That day, Trump fired Krebs, calling his agency’s reporting "highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud." We rated Trump’s statement Pants on Fire! 

The 2020 election was not ‘rigged and stolen’

Today, there’s more evidence to refute Trump’s statement about the election’s security. 

Biden won the 2020 election after receiving 306 electoral votes, compared with 232 for Trump. Biden also got about 7 million more votes nationwide than Trump. 

Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits contesting the 2020 election results; they lost more than 60. The lawsuits failed for various reasons,including that the allegations lacked proof.

In 2022, a group of Republicans, including former federal judges, examined Trump’s statements of fraud and miscount. They concluded that the claims "failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the (election) results." 

There were few, isolated cases of voter fraud in 2020, including by Republicans. Those cases included people casting votes on dead relatives’ behalf and would not have changed the election’s outcome. 

Our ruling

Trump said the 2020 election was "rigged" and Krebs "baselessly" dismissed "election malfeasance."

As the senior Trump administration official responsible for election security and infrastructure, Krebs and his agency affirmed the 2020 election’s security.

The 2020 election, one of the most scrutinized and litigated in history, was neither rigged nor stolen. 

Biden won the election. The states and Congress certified and accepted the results. Trump and his allies lost more than 60 election lawsuits. And many election security officials — including Republicans and people in Trump’s own administration — determined the 2020 election was secure.

We rate Trump’s statement Pants on Fire! 

PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this report. 

RELATED: Fact-check: Trump relies on falsehoods when pushing voting changes in speech to governors

RELATED: Fact-check: Here is how we know Vance’s statement that Trump did not lose in 2020 is Pants on Fire

RELATED: States made voting by mail easier amid COVID-19 in 2020. Trump is wrong to call that cheating.

Before pausing country-by-country tariffs for 90 days, President Donald Trump repeatedly said tariffs were bringing in immense revenue.

At an April 8 executive order signing, Trump said, "We’re taking in almost $2 billion a day in tariffs. Two billion a day."

He repeated the $2 billion figure during an April 8 speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Trump did not cite a source for the figure. 

The next day, as financial indicators tumbled, Trump flip-flopped on enacting many of his planned tariffs. He announced a 90-day pause on country-by-country tariffs, except for China, which will have a 125% rate. He also let stand a 10% universal tariff and existing levies on Canada and Mexico.

Had the U.S. already collected $2 billion a day from Trump’s existing tariffs? 

The U.S. Treasury’s April 8 daily statement contradicts that: It showed $192 million in revenues for custom duties and certain excise taxes. 

Customs duties are essentially tariffs, but excise duties are different. Still, the vast majority of the figure should be tariffs, said Robert Koopman, an American University lecturer and former World Trade Organization chief economist.

PolitiFact puts the onus on the speaker to provide evidence, and the Trump administration has provided none. Before and after Trump’s tariff reversal, we asked the White House for Trump’s evidence and received no response.  

The tariff collections figure might approach $2 billion if the now-paused tariff rates were applied to past trade amounts. But that would assume that trade levels would remain unchanged when tariffs are in effect, which economists say is doubtful. It would also mean that Trump is counting future projected revenues as having been "taken in" already. 

"The U.S. is not currently pulling in $2 billion per day from tariffs," whether before or after Trump’s pause, said Michael Stanaitis, who teaches international economics courses at American University.

RELATED: Flip flop: Trump said he wasn’t looking at pausing tariffs. Two days later, he did.

How could the number have been calculated? 

Trump could have arrived at $2 billion by using the same formula as Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator.

William George, Import Genius’ research director, said he took the sum of trade based on 2024 data and divided it by 366 days (since 2024 was a leap year) to get an average daily total import value. Then, Import Genius multiplied the daily import values by the tariff rates that were set to kick in to calculate the daily tariff impacts.

Adding those numbers for China, the European Union, Vietnam and Cambodia comes to about $1.8 billion a day. If including the smaller countries, it would increase that number to about $2 billion. George’s calculations assume across-the-board tariffs without industry-specific carve outs such as pharmaceuticals.  (The number rises to about $2.8 billion when Trump’s April 9 higher tariff rate for China is used.)

But this theoretical $2 billion result is unlikely in the real world, economists told PolitiFact. Import Genius acknowledged this; Trump has not.

"Here is the big caveat," George said. Those estimates are "looking at 2024 trade numbers. But these policies are going to tremendously suppress trade. We can’t assume that while massively tariffing (U.S. trading partners), trade volumes will remain the same."

Another caveat is that importers brought in more goods to the U.S. starting in 2024 in anticipation of tariff increases. This means importers might not continue to import at 2024 levels.

"It's trying to have your cake and eat it, too," George said. "It is announcing income under the best possible scenario while looking at the past while not accepting reality that is going to be created by the policies themselves."

It would take time to assess tariffs’ impact; some goods in transit are exempt if they arrive before May 27.

Independent estimates expect the number to fall well short of $2 billion a day. 

The Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank, estimated about $800 million a day on average in customs duties based on currently applied and scheduled tariffs, as of April 10 — "nowhere near the amount the president claimed," said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy.

Trump’s decision to pause the tariffs kept a 10% tariff in place on all countries, along with higher tariffs on China and existing tariffs on Mexico and Canada. But even after the pause, economists expressed skepticism about the $2 billion per day figure.

"While I suppose this might be plausible, it is improbable because it assumes that the volume of imports remains about the same," Stanaitis said in an email. "The U.S. has not had this high of an average tariff rate in over a century, and we can expect that the volume of imports will decrease, thereby lowering revenue expectations."

A potential U.S. or worldwide recession would "also be a drag on both consumption of imports and thus tariff revenue," Stanaitis said. If tariffs continue to weaken the dollar, imports will rise in price, further suppressing imports.

Some companies that import goods halted shipments amid the whiplash of tariff news.

"I have spoken with many clients (who) are delaying shipments to the United States in the hope that this chaos will be resolved soon," Peter Quinter, chair of the U.S. customs and international trade law group at Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart law firm, told PolitiFact shortly before Trump announced his tariff reversal.

Our ruling

Trump said, "We’re taking in almost $2 billion a day in tariffs."

Trump provided no evidence for his statement. It’s possible he applied past trade data to project the impact of his  tariffs that have since been rescinded. But such a formula assumes that trade would remain constant in spite of higher tariff rates, and economists said that defies logic.

It will take time to know the tariffs’ impact, but he has not proven that they have already resulted in almost $2 billion a day. The responsibility is on Trump to explain how he arrived at the $2 billion a day figure and he has not done that.

We rate this statement False. 

RELATED: Are other countries ‘cheating’ the U.S. on trade?

RELATED: Did Trump impose ‘the largest tax hike in our lifetime’? How it compares, as it’s currently proposed

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins blamed former President Joe Biden for the rising agricultural trade deficit, while defending President Donald Trump’s tariffs on nearly every country.

"In the last four years, we had an agriculture export deficit that increased from zero when President Trump left to $49 billion," Rollins said in an April 6 CNN interview. She was responding to host Jake Tapper’s question about uncertainty for U.S. farmers amid implementation of Trump’s tariffs.

Trump declared a 90-day pause on most of his tariffs April 9 after backlash and stock market declines. Trump did not pause a 125% tariff on China.

The agriculture trade deficit, when the value of imports exceeds the value of exports, has increased for several years. But Rollins' statement misleads by cherry picking data and blaming Biden and his policies.

The most current data for agriculture exports, from fiscal year 2024 that ended in September, shows a $31.8 billion trade deficit. The $49 billion figure that Rollins cited is a projection for fiscal year 2025, which mainly spans Trump’s current administration.

And the agricultural export deficit was not zero when Trump left office; it was $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2020, Trump’s last full fiscal year during his first term.

USDA did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment. 

Agricultural economists said there are several reasons why the agricultural trade deficit has grown, and Trump’s tariffs during his first term is a major one.

USDA projects $49 million agricultural trade deficit for fiscal year 2025

In February, the Department of Agriculture published a report forecasting agricultural trade for fiscal year 2025, which started in October 2024. The report projected a $49 billion agricultural trade deficit, a record high. The previous record was set in fiscal year 2024.

Fiscal year 2025 covers about four months of Biden’s administration and about eight months of Trump’s current administration. Also, USDA updates its projections periodically throughout the year, so it’s unclear what the final trade deficit will be for fiscal year 2025 and whether Trump’s current tariffs will affect it. 

During Trump’s first term, his administration gave U.S. farmers $28 billion in subsidies after tariffs on China decimated the U.S. agricultural export market. The New York Times reported March 31 that the current administration is considering whether to give emergency aid to farmers.

During her CNN interview, Rollins said USDA "will make sure that we have the funds" for farmer subsidies if needed. 

Trump left office with an agriculture trade deficit

Historically, the U.S. had an agricultural trade surplus. But in fiscal year 2019, during Trump’s first term, the U.S. recorded its first agricultural trade deficit in nearly 60 years, according to the USDA report.

Since fiscal year 2019, the U.S. has fluctuated between an agricultural trade deficit and surplus. In fiscal years 2019 and 2020, USDA recorded trade deficits of $1.3 billion and $3.7 billion, respectively. 

In the first two years of the Biden administration — fiscal years 2021 and 2022 — USDA recorded trade surpluses. In the last two years of the Biden administration, it moved into record-high trade deficits.  

There are two ways to potentially reach Rollins’ number of a zero trade deficit, both misleading. 

One way is to consider the fiscal year when Trump left office. Fiscal year 2021, which included the last few months of Trump’s first administration, had a trade surplus. But Biden was president during most of that year.

The other way is to look at the calendar year instead of the fiscal year. In the 2020 calendar year, Trump’s last full year in office during his first term, USDA reported a $3.4 billion agricultural trade surplus. But Rollins’ $49 billion deficit figure aimed at Biden pointed to a fiscal year. Using a fiscal year to blame Biden for a trade deficit and a calendar year to praise Trump for a trade surplus is disingenuous. 

Why the agricultural trade deficit has increased 

Agricultural economists said the agricultural trade deficit has increased for several reasons, including Trump’s first term tariffs, the strength of the U.S. dollar and U.S. consumer demand for imported goods.

Tariffs on China during Trump’s first term 

In 2018, Trump implemented tariffs against China. China retaliated by shifting its imports away from the U.S., producing goods domestically or trading with other countries. For example, instead of importing soybeans from the U.S., China began importing from Brazil. 

That "started the path to (agricultural) deficits," William Alan Reinsch, an international trade expert at Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.

The strength of the U.S. dollar 

The U.S. dollar’s value has been rising since the Great Recession waned in 2011. That means its exchange rate is higher against other currencies. 

A strong dollar can benefit Americans traveling overseas, because their dollars buy more local currency. It also makes imports relatively cheaper. But the strong dollar has also contributed to the agricultural trade deficit, Reinsch said, because U.S. exports cost more overseas. 

"The strong US dollar and weakened foreign currencies are making it more difficult for countries to buy US exports," Betty Resnick, an agricultural economist, wrote in a February report.

U.S. consumer demand for imported goods

U.S. consumers have strong demand for coffee, year-round access to fruit and vegetables and alcohol. Those are products the U.S. imports in part because they aren’t domestically grown in large enough quantities to meet demand. Increased demand for those products in the U.S. means they have to be imported. And increased imports can affect the trade deficit. 

According to the USDA projection, agricultural imports are expected to increase by $4 billion in fiscal year 2025 compared with 2024.

Trump’s tariffs could raise the agricultural trade deficit

In response to Trump’s tariffs, China announced an 84% retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods starting April 10.

"The major effect will come if other countries retaliate against our tariffs," Reinsch said, before China announced retaliatory tariffs. "Agriculture is usually a prime target when that happens, and, given the additional tariffs being placed on China, you can expect most trade with China to be effectively cut off because of their retaliation."

Trade relation disruptions as a result of Trump’s tariffs are likely to negatively affect U.S. farmers, the International Food Policy Research Institute, a think tank working to reduce poverty and end hunger, said in a report. The group said other countries such as Brazil and Argentina will likely step in to fill the gaps to sell products the U.S. usually exports, such as soybeans, beef and corn.

"This shift is expected to reshape the global agricultural market," the report said.

Our ruling

Rollins said, "In the last four years, we had an agriculture export deficit that increased from zero when President Trump left to $49 billion."

The agricultural trade deficit was not zero when Trump left office. In fiscal year 2021, Trump’s last full fiscal year in office during his first term, USDA recorded a $3.7 billion trade deficit. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. recorded its first agricultural trade deficit in nearly 60 years, in part because of tariffs he imposed on China. 

The most current data for agriculture exports, from fiscal year 2024 that ended in September, shows a $31.8 billion trade deficit. The $49 billion figure that Rollins cited is a projection for fiscal year 2025, which mostly spans Trump’s current administration.

Attributing changes in the agricultural trade deficit to the president alone is misleading. Some factors that affect the trade deficit are out of the president’s control, such as consumer demand.

Rollins’ statement includes an element of truth because in the last two years of the Biden administration, agriculture trade moved into record-high deficits. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

In a reversal of the plan he defended for days, President Donald Trump delayed almost all of the country-by-country tariffs he unveiled April 2.

For two days, Trump and the White House denied that he was considering a pause of the tariff plan shaking global markets.

During an April 7 Oval Office event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a reporter asked Trump, "Would you be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiation?"

"Well, we're not looking at that," Trump said. "We have many, many countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us, and they're going to be fair deals. And in certain cases, they're going to be paying substantial tariffs. They'll be fair deals."

On April 9 — hours after he told everyone to "BE COOL!" — Trump changed course. "I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately," Trump posted on Truth Social. "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

He made an exception for China, raising its tariff to 125%.

PolitiFact uses a Flip-O-Meter to measure politicians’ consistency on issues. The rating is not making a value judgment about a politician who changes positions on an issue. Some people say changing positions shows inconsistent principles; others say it shows pragmatism and willingness to compromise given new information.

Tariffs are a tax on imported goods that businesses pay. Their cost is often passed on to consumers through higher prices.

The Trump administration has said that by raising revenue through tariffs, other federal taxes could be cut. But economists have said it’s unlikely high tariffs could generate enough revenue to result in meaningful tax reductions for typical Americans. 

Trump and the White House initially said he would not pause tariffs 

On the morning of April 7, X accounts amplified a significant exaggeration of a noncommittal response from National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett responding to the possibility of a 90-day tariff pause. CNBC anchors repeated the unconfirmed information and later aired a correction.

Trump on April 7 shared a clip of Fox News host Maria Bartiromo saying earlier that morning, "Rates are plummeting, oil prices are plummeting, deregulation is happening. ... President Trump is not going to bend."

The White House held Trump’s line; its"Rapid Response 47" X account said reports that Trump was expected to issue a 90-day pause were "fake news." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNBC the same thing.

During an April 8 White House press briefing, a reporter asked Leavitt if Trump was considering holding off on imposing some tariffs or reversing them due to negotiations with other countries.

"The president was asked and answered this yesterday," Leavitt said. "He said he is not considering an extension or delay. I spoke to him before this briefing, that was not his mindset. He expects that these tariffs are going to go into effect."

The U.S. stock market had tumultuous days and losses amid Trump’s announced tariffs. 

‘They were getting yippy’: How Trump explained his changed position

Trump’s Truth Social announcement about a pause for most tariffs came shortly after 1 p.m. ET on April 9. He said more than 75 countries had called federal officials to negotiate a solution and had not retaliated, except for China.

A few hours later at an event with auto racers, a reporter asked Trump to explain his thinking. Trump said: "Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy, you know they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid."

Responding to another question about the pause, Trump said, "I think in financial markets, because they change. Look how much it changed today. We went from, you know, pretty moderate today, but over the last few days, it looked pretty glum to, I guess they say it was the biggest day in financial history."

Even after the 9.5% increase in the S&P 500 market index on April 9, the metric was still down nearly 11% since its peak under Trump on Feb. 19, wiping away all gains since early September 2024, under both Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden.

A reporter noted how Trump went from no pause to a pause in two days.

Trump said: "You have to have flexibility. I could say, here’s a wall and I’m gonna go through that wall. I’m gonna go through it no matter what. Keep going and you can’t go through the wall. Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall, around the wall, or over the wall. These guys know that better than anybody, right? You got to go around them sometimes, you’re not gonna go through them."

Trump said he was thinking about a pause "over the last few days" as he was talking with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. "I think it probably came together early this morning, fairly early this morning, just wrote it up," Trump said. 

Our ruling

On April 7, a reporter asked Trump if he would be open to a pause to his country-by-country tariffs to allow for negotiation, and he replied, "Well, we're not looking at that." The White House said that social posts suggesting that Trump was considering a 90-day pause were "fake news."

But two days later Trump authorized a 90-day pause on the country-by-country tariffs. He said this decision came after several nations told the administration that they were willing to negotiate. 

When asked by a reporter about the pause, Trump said people were "jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy."

Our definition of a Full Flop is a complete change in position. That’s what Trump did here. We rate Trump’s change of position a Full Flop.

PolitiFact Staff Writers Loreben Tuquero and Madison Czopek and Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this fact-check.

RELATED: Did Trump impose ‘the largest tax hike in our lifetime’? How it compares, as it’s currently proposed

RELATED: Karoline Leavitt says tariffs are ‘a tax cut.’ Economists say they aren’t

Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego said his political party needs to work harder to appeal to men, given how male voters helped propel President Donald Trump to his 2024 victory.

"A lot of Democrats don’t even try talking to men," Gallego said on the March 24 "Raging Moderates" podcast episode. "We don’t talk about the fact that they have the lowest college attainment rate ever, that they are living at home with their parents, they are not having success." 

Data shows Gallego — who stood out among 2024’s campaigning Democrats in part because he made appealing to men a central part of his messaging — is largely accurate on male college attainment levels.

Education experts use the term "college attainment" to describe different things — in some cases, it refers to college completion rates; in others, it refers to any college experience. Gallego didn’t specify in the podcast what he was describing, but his spokesperson told us later he was referring to the share of male population on campus. Gallego’s overall point that men are attending postsecondary educational institutions at lower rates than women has been widely reported by think tanks and news outlets. 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, four men were enrolled in postsecondary institutions for every six women in 2023, a historic low. This shift is a reversal of historical norms. The first U.S. woman to obtain a degree, Catherine Benson, graduated in 1840. Before then, higher education in the United States was reserved exclusively for men. Women have comprised more than 50% of college enrollment since 1979 and the proportion of women in higher education has only grown. 

Overall male enrollment numbers have increased since data was first collected in 1869 because of general population growth and larger numbers of degree-granting institutions. But the percentage of degrees conferred on men has shrunk at every degree level, per the National Center for Education Statistics.

The most recent data from 2020 graduates shows that, for women, the four-year degree completion rate is 53.7%. For men, it’s 43.4%.

Richard Reeves, director of the American Institute for Boys and Men and author of 2022’s "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It," said two main factors drive the college completion gap. 

One reason is that they're less likely to enroll than women, and the other is that they are less likely than women to complete a degree within four years, he said.

The disparity is more pronounced for Black and Latino men, who are more than 10 percentage points less likely than white and Asian males to attend or complete college, according to the American Council on Education. 

Since 2008, male college enrollment has hovered around 8.4 million in the U.S. per academic year, while female enrollment has steadily increased. In 2022, 57% of male high school graduates enrolled in college, compared with 66% of their female peers. That 57% is the same as in 1964.

"The gender gap in college is reflecting the gaps that have been accumulating all the way through the K-12 system, as opposed to causing them," Reeves said. "It's not like girls and boys come out of high school equally prepared for college, and then something happens. The girls come out significantly ahead of the boys, especially on things like GPA."

Fewer men think college is beneficial to their post-high school careers, and fewer men want to continue school when they are already lagging their female peers in K-12, Reeves said. Campus-specific surveys show that men increasingly report feeling alienated on college campuses, he said. "They'll very often say that they'll find that the male students are the ones who just don't quite feel it ‘fits,’" Reeves said.

Our ruling

Gallego said men now "have the lowest college attainment rate ever."

Gallego’s spokesperson told us he was referring to the share of college students who are men.

Although male enrollment raw numbers are higher today than they were in 1869 because of general population growth, National Center for Education Statistics data shows that men have fallen behind women in higher education enrollment and degree completion. National Center for Education Statistics data shows four men were enrolled in postsecondary institutions for every six women in 2023, a historic low. 

Data from 2020 graduates shows that for women, the four-year degree completion rate is 53.7%, and for men, it’s 43.4%.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Editor’s note: On April 9, President Donald Trump announced a 90-day delay for some tariffs on all countries, except China, a reversal of his previous stance. On April 7, the White House had dismissed rumors of Trump considering a 90-day pause as "fake news." 

White House officials never publicly mentioned a 90-day pause of President Donald Trump's tariffs on April 7, but X posts falsely saying they did contributed to a brief multi-trillion dollar stock market rally. 

Verified X accounts that cover markets attributed reports of the supposed pause to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who had appeared on Fox News that morning. The posts — the first of which was shared at 10:11 a.m. — shared a significantly exaggerated version of Hassett’s response to an interview question about a 90-day pause. That incorrect information was echoed in web headlines and cable outlets that cover the markets. 

One larger X account said its post was based on a news headline from an outlet it did not identify. It’s still unclear where that purported headline originated; the markets started climbing at 10:09 a.m., shortly before the first X posts shared the 90-day tariff pause claim.

The rumored tariff relief boosted the market after days of dips since Trump announced across-the-board tariffs on trade partners April 2. 

Here’s how the rumor spread before the Trump White House addressed it.

How distorted remarks shared on X fed headlines, CNBC commentary

At about 8:30 a.m. E.T., "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade asked Hassett whether the administration would consider a 90-day pause on tariffs. 

"Yeah, you know, I think the president is going to decide what the president’s going to decide," Hassett said. "There are more than 50 countries in negotiation with the president. We’ve got the prime minister of Israel coming today. We’ve had a reach out overnight from Taiwan. But I would urge everyone — especially (Bill Ackman) — to ease off the rhetoric a little bit." (Ackman, a billionaire who endorsed Trump, said the president’s policies might trigger a "self-induced economic nuclear winter.")

The distortion of Hassett’s remarks appeared to start with the X account Hammer Capital at 10:11 a.m. 

"Hassett: Trump is considering a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries except China," the account posted in all capital letters. Then, in lowercase text: "Mother of all squeezes incoming." 

Hammer Capital had nearly 700 followers April 7, and the account’s blue check mark shows that its owner is an X Premium subscriber.

Two minutes later, the "Walter Bloomberg" X account shared a red siren emoji and the same purported Hassett statement in all capital letters. The anonymous account, with 850,000 followers, primarily posts Bloomberg Terminal headlines about the markets. Although it isn’t affiliated with Bloomberg News, TechCrunch reported it has been considered a reliable source of business news.

A 10:14 a.m. article on ForexLive, a market news and analysis website, warned that the viral headline’s source was unclear even though the headline was being shared "everywhere."

Around the same time, CNBC anchors attempted to explain a sudden market rally. 

"Apparently, Hassett’s been saying that Trump will consider a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries except for China," said CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla. 

Jeremy Siegel, a frequent CNBC guest and Wharton School professor emeritus of finance, said: "Oh, well that’s huge. I mean that changes the game." 

"We’ll try and source that exactly in terms of where that’s coming from," CNBC host David Faber said. A few moments later, a CNBC chyron repeated the claim circulating on X. After those initial mentions, CNBC reporters discussing the reported headline repeatedly said that the White House had not confirmed the news.

A CNBC spokesperson said later that as the network reported the market news in real-time, it had aired unconfirmed information in a graphic. Within about 20 minutes of its original report, CNBC’s senior Washington correspondent Eamon Javers made an on-air correction.

Next, Reuters ran a story crediting CNBC. The newswire later withdrew the story, according to an archived version of the link.

"Reuters, drawing from a headline on CNBC, published a story on April 7 saying White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett had said that President Donald Trump was considering a 90-day tariff pause on all countries except China," the story said. "The White House denied the report. Reuters has withdrawn the incorrect report and regrets its error."

At 10:33 a.m., CNBC’s Javers reported that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told him the 90-day pause chatter was "fake news."

By 10:38 a.m., the White House’s Rapid Response 47 X account also dismissed claims of an upcoming 90-day tariff pause.

Wrong. Not only did Director Hassett not say this (clip below), @POTUS has been clear — "it all has to change, but especially with CHINA!!!" https://t.co/3Kvt8AScAZ pic.twitter.com/JHucHjZm3S

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 7, 2025

The original source of the information remains unclear 

Searching Google and the Nexis news database, we found no credible reports the Trump administration publicly considered a 90-day tariff pause. 

In response to journalists’ questions on X, the account Hammer Capital did not provide the source of the information in its initial X post. At almost 1 p.m., the account said it had been "regurgitating what the market was reacting to" after "trading desks started sending out this headline at 10:09." PolitiFact messaged Hammer Capital on X and received no response. 

The Walter Bloomberg account owner also did not respond to our email inquiry asking for the source of its post. The account owner told The Wall Street Journal they first saw the headline at 10:09 a.m. Those who run the Walter Bloomberg account found a 10:12 a.m. X post from another stock market-focused account and, "given the market movement," determined the headline must be credible and shared it, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

For the media, the incident revealed reporting difficulties when facing "a highly volatile stock market," said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota professor of media ethics and law. She said the "missing piece" for news organizations was getting a response from the White House before publishing the original stories. 

"The White House may not have been immediately forthcoming, but ultimately, news organizations should do everything possible to confirm a rumor — especially one with the implications this one had," she said. 

Our ruling

X posts say Hassett said, "Trump is considering a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries except China." 

The posts appear to have been amplifying a distortion of a noncommittal response Hassett gave on "Fox & Friends" to a question about the possibility of a 90-day tariff pause. We found no credible reports that the Trump administration was ever considering a 90-day tariff pause. 

The White House responded to a post echoing this claim on X, writing, "Wrong. Fake News."

We rate this claim False. 

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

RELATED: What is a recession, and is it tied to stock market declines? What to know after Trump’s tariffs

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t buy a controlling stake in a South Africa-based mining company, but a video spreading on social media could lead some users to believe otherwise. 

"He has purchased a controlling stake in Northam Platinum LTD," a narrator said in what looks like a segment from South African broadcaster SABC News, pronouncing each letter of the abbreviation for "limited." "One of South Africa's leading platinum mining companies."

The text at the bottom of the video, which includes an "SABC News" logo, says: "Zelenskyy purchased a controlling stake in Northam Platinum Ltd."

SABC stands for the South African Broadcasting Corp.

This Facebook post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

A Northam Platinum Holdings Limited spokesperson told PolitiFact in an email that the claims in this video aren’t true. A Northam spokesperson told fact-checker Lead Stories that Zelenskky acquired no stakes in the company. 

SABC News told PolitiFact the post and video are "fake news." In an April 4 X post, the outlet said "SABC News distances itself from the publication and distribution of fake news" and shared an image of another X post with the purported SABC News report. The words "fake news" appear stamped in red across the image.

Searching its news website, we found no stories mentioning Zelenskyy and Northam. 

At one point in the video, the narrator claims that an "SABC crew" interviewed one of Northam’s miners, but the miner’s purported remarks about Zelenskyy don’t track with the movements of his mouth. 

We rate claims this is an authentic broadcast False.

UPDATE, April 7, 2025: This story was updated to include comment from SABC News. 

The Cleveland Clinic is a large and well-respected medical center based in Cleveland, Ohio, so purported news that it’s warning millions of people will soon die following COVID-19 vaccination would draw attention. 

A March 28 Facebook post shared such a headline. 

"Cleveland Clinic: Millions of COVID-vaxxed will die within ‘5 years,’" the headline said. 

This Facebook post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

The headline came from a March 23 post on the website "Slay News," which describes itself as an "alternative" media company. PolitiFact has previously fact-checked false information published on the site. 

The post says that "the renowned Cleveland Clinic has dropped a bone-chilling warning that millions of people who received COVID mRNA ‘vaccines’ are facing sudden death within the next ‘five years.’ According to the Ohio-based academic medical center, large numbers of the Covid-vaccinated ‘may need a heart transplant’ to avoid a sudden cardiac arrest."

The post cites a page on the Cleveland Clinic’s website about myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can make it more difficult for the heart to pump. While the page discusses COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, it doesn’t make the claims stated in the blog post. 

Here’s what the Cleveland Clinic’s website does say: 

• Researchers estimate there are 1.5 million cases of myocarditis in the world each year. 

• About 50% to 80% of people with viral myocarditis survive five years or more after diagnosis, and "many people, especially younger people, recover fully." 

• Myocarditis can lead to complications, such as dilated cardiomyopathy, a condition where the heart becomes enlarged and weak that can eventually lead to heart failure and may require a heart transplant. 

• Sudden cardiac death is a possible complication of myocarditis, and myocarditis is linked to nearly 20% of sudden deaths in young people.

• Young people who received COVID-19 vaccines developed myocarditis "in rare cases." 

We asked the clinic about the blog post. In a statement, it said: "Recent claims suggesting that the COVID-19 vaccine will lead to myocarditis and mass deaths are false and lack any scientific basis. Research has shown that contracting the COVID-19 virus is a greater risk factor for heart-related complications, including myocarditis, than the vaccine."

We rate this post False.

Democrat Susan Crawford beat the Republican candidate backed by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk to secure a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and ensure a liberal majority on the state’s top court for several more years. 

A headline spreading on social media that says the election is under investigation originated on a website that publishes fabricated and sensational stories.

"White Hats to investigate Wisconsin Supreme Court election," the April 2 headline said. 

A screenshot of the headline shared on Facebook was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

"White hats" is a term QAnon conspiracy theorists use to refer to people working within the government to "thwart the deep state," according to the Anti-Defamation League. 

Real Raw News, the site that published the headline, regularly posts false information. Its "About Us" page also notes that the website "contains humor, parody and satire." 

This particular post baselessly casts doubt on Crawford’s win, saying she "seemingly defeated Trump-endorsed Brad Schimel;" the post also wrongly describes the 2020 election as "stolen." 

Schimel, meanwhile, quickly conceded the election — and urged his supporters to accept the election results. 

We rate claims the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is under investigation False.

An image of what looks like Pope Francis grinning and gripping the hand of someone wearing a pale mask, clad in a red cloak, is circulating on social media with a caption that lacks context. 

"Pope Francis, shaking the hand of the priest of the Church of Satan... ‘God does not reject anyone,’" a March 30 Facebook post said. 

It was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

Francis has said "God does not reject anyone," but this isn’t an authentic photo. 

A reverse-image search turned up no credible sources sharing the image. 

As Snopes reported in 2023, Récord, a Mexican sports newspaper, included the image in a roundup of the best images of the pope created by artificial intelligence. 

We looked for but found no evidence, such as news stories, of a meeting between the pope and the Church of Satan purportedly illustrated in this image. 

The Church of Satan didn’t immediately respond to PolitiFact’s questions about the post, but its website notes that "Satanists are atheists," not Devil-worshippers. Peter Gilmore is the organization’s high priest, and Peggy Nadramia is its high priestess, according to the site.

We rate claims this is an authentic image of the pope and a Church of Satan priest False.

Since his first term, President Donald Trump’s golf trips have drawn criticism from detractors. And a recent HuffPost analysis found that taxpayers have so far footed a bill of more than $26 million for such outings in his second term. 

But billionaire and White House adviser Elon Musk didn’t suggest on X that the Department of Government Efficiency had inadvertently identified Trump as the source of fiscal waste. 

"Unbelievable," reads what looks like a March 16 screenshot of a Musk post. "The DOGE team has discovered TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on GOLF by a SINGLE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. Stay tuned for when we figure out who it is."

Facebook posts sharing this image were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

Musk didn’t post this on X. 

It doesn’t appear in his X feed, and we found no credible news reports indicating he posted and deleted such an announcement. 

The image shared on Facebook also doesn’t reflect what the X website looks like today. For example, it appears as though Musk had "94 Retweets" at the time the screenshot was taken. But "retweets" ceased to exist after Musk acquired Twitter and renamed the social media platform X. 

The purported post echoes a March 9 Guardian headline: "US taxpayers have shelled out tens of millions of dollars for Trump’s golf trips." 

But claims this is an authentic Musk post are wrong. We rate them False.

Caitlin Clark, a guard for the Indiana Fever WNBA team, regularly and falsely appears in unfounded social media posts connecting her to billionaire Elon Musk. 

In August 2024, Musk purportedly offered her a $10 million endorsement. In October 2024, posts said he had endorsed her and would soon "donate $10 million" to Clark because she was "the pride of America." Now, Facebook posts are claiming Musk offered her $15 million, and she said no.

"BREAKING: Caitlin Clark STUNS the Globe, REJECTS Elon Musk’s $15 Million Offer - ‘Keep It. Use It to Help Someone Who Actually Needs It,’" a March 29 post said. 

It was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

We looked for but found no credible evidence, such as news reports or public statements from Musk or Clark, that this is true. Searching Musk’s X account, where he regularly posts about his life and work, we found nothing about Clark, much less that he offered her $15 million that Clark then rejected. 

We rate this post False.