No, Melania Trump didn’t sue ‘The View’ for $900 million
By Sofia Ahmed
After daytime talk show "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin made disparaging remarks about President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump’s relationship, some social media users said the first lady sued.
"Melania wins $900M ‘defamation lawsuit’ against The View & Sunny Hostin," a Feb. 1 Threads video’s text said. The video included what sounds like an artificial intelligence-generated narration that said Hostin claimed "without a shred of evidence that Melania hates her husband and only pretends to love him."
During an Oct. 3 episode of "The View," when discussing the stance on reproductive rights Melania Trump relayed in her memoir, Hostin said of Melania Trump, "I think she hates him (Donald Trump) … She doesn’t wanna sleep in the same room with him. She can’t tolerate him."
But Trump did not sue "The View" or Hostin for the comments.
A search of Google and the Nexis news database for reports about Melania Trump suing "The View" for defamation yielded no credible results. We did find reports about Trump settling defamation lawsuits against the Daily Mail for $2.9 million in 2017 after the paper falsely said she was once an escort.
PolitiFact previously fact-checked several similar claims that public figures including musician Jason Aldean, X owner Elon Musk, and swimmer Riley Gaines sued "The View."
We rate the claim that Melania Trump won a $900 million defamation lawsuit against "The View" and Hostin False.
Did Elon Musk post he found out at DOGE that the Pentagon spent $600 million per year on sushi, the Air Force $1,280 per paper coffee cup and the IRS $230k per month on "Starbucks Cinammon Roast K Cups"? No, that's not true: Those claims originated on a parody account that pretended to be Elon Musk. The account was literally named "Not Elon Musk" and it had a bio that said "This is a parody account."
by: Maarten Schenk
The claims originated in a post on X (archived here) published on January 24, 2024. It read:
Good morning 𝕏! My experience with DOGE has been totally wild so far. I told you yesterday about the $600 million per year the Pentagon was spending on Sushi...
Well, I just found another wild one! The Air Force was spending $1,280 per paper coffee cup! Like literally those ones you find at the office. $1280!!! We also found that $230k per month was being spent by the IRS on Starbucks Cinammon Roast K Cups, but everyone was working from home!
Anyway, back to work! Have a great day!
The accompanying image of Musk bore the logo of Grok AI and the Hive AI detector Chrome extension said it was 99.5 percent confident the image was create with AI.
The account @iamnot_elon (archived here) on X has a bio that reads:
Parody account
NOT Elon Musk. This is a parody account. Short stories, news, polls and more! @NotSpacewear. Boss of @lindayaxc, dad of @teddy_musk. New acct @xMotivationClub
A Google search of the doge.gov website (archived here) did not reveal any content mentioning sushi, paper coffee cups or cinnamon. Neither did a search of DOGE's X account (archived here).
Trump signed an executive order to implement tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China.
He has been threatening the tariffs on the three countries and others for months.
Canada and Mexico have vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs against the US.
By Ayelet Sheffey, Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert, Katie Balevic, Rebecca Rommen, and Kenneth Niemeyer
Canada and Mexico have hit straight back at President Donald Trump's latest tariffs, vowing to impose retaliatory levies on the US.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Saturday that Canada would impose 25% tariffs on C$155 billion (around $106 billion) of US goods, some of which will go into effect on Tuesday and others in three weeks' time.
Mexico's President, Claudia Sheinbaum, said in a post on X that she had also ordered retaliatory tariffs.
"I instruct the economy minister to implement Plan B that we have been working on, which includes tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests," she wrote.
The Trump administration said Saturday it had imposed a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on China. On Sunday, the president reacted to Canada's retaliation, saying it would "struggle to exist" without US subsidies.
"We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don't need anything they have," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
China's Ministry of Commerce, meanwhile, accused the United States in a statement released Sunday of violating World Trade Organization rules with the tariff.
The ministry said China would file a lawsuit with the WTO against the United States and take "corresponding countermeasures to firmly safeguard its own rights and interests."
Economists expect many firms to pass increased costs caused by tariffs onto customers, and several companies have already said they are preparing to raise prices in response. Electronics, groceries, and apparel are among the most likely products to see price increases.
The White House said the tariffs will work to deliver Trump's campaign promises. Regarding his proposed first round of tariffs, an official told Business Insider that "Trump has been clear about his desire to end the fentanyl crisis, and it's time for Mexico and Canada to join the fight as well." Trump has said a tariff on China would also help fight the fentanyl problem.
Here are all the countries Trump has targeted with his trade proposals so far.
China
China was a key focus for tariffs on the campaign trail. While campaigning, Trump proposed a 60% tariff on all goods imported from China, alongside a 10% to 20% tariff on imports from other countries.
Once Trump took office, though, his ideas for tariffs on China appeared to narrow. On January 21, he suggested a 10% tariff on imports from China into the United States beginning on February 1 "based on the fact that they're sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada."
The Trump administration cited the fentanyl crisis on Saturday as the impetus for the new tariffs.
China is a major electronics supplier to the United States, so cellphones, computers, and games could get more expensive.
Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, told reporters on January 22: "We believe that there's no winner in a trade or tariff war, and we will firmly uphold our national interests."
Canada and Mexico
The new tariffs make good on an earlier threat Trump posted in November on his social media platform, Truth Social. He indicated at the time that he would impose tariffs on those two countries on his first day in office if they didn't strengthen their border policies.
The US imports many key goods from both Mexico and Canada. Americans receive $92 billion in crude oil from Canada, as well as billions of dollars worth of vehicles and vehicle parts. In addition to car parts, Mexico also supplies $25 billion worth of computers to the United States.
BRICS nations
On November 30, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would impose a 100% tariff on the BRICS group unless they committed to not creating a separate currency that competes with the US dollar.
BRICS consists of nine countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.
Pharmaceutical preparations, crude oil, and household goods are the top imports from countries in the BRICS group, excluding China. The Trump administration did not announce any tariffs on the BRICS nations on Saturday.
Denmark
Trump said during a press conference on January 7 that he would "tariff Denmark at a very high level" if the country didn't agree to cede control of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, to the United States.
The president has not offered further details on that claim, nor have any such tariffs been implemented. The Financial Times reported that Trump and Denmark's premier, Mette Frederiksen, had a call to discuss the threat, during which Frederiksen reportedly emphasized that Greenland was not for sale.
The US primarily imports medicinal products and machinery from Denmark.
BRUSSELS — The European Union is warning U.S. President Donald Trump the bloc will retaliate if he imposes tariffs on EU goods.
By Zia Weise
The European Commission, the EU’s executive body, said it “regrets” Trump’s decision to impose blanket tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China on Saturday. The U.S. president has vowed to take similar measures against the EU.
“Our trade and investment relationship with the U.S. is the biggest in the world. There is a lot at stake,” a Commission spokesperson said on Sunday. “Tariffs create unnecessary economic disruption and drive inflation. They are hurtful to all sides.”
Nevertheless, the spokesperson said, “the EU would respond firmly to any trading partner that unfairly or arbitrarily imposes tariffs on EU goods.”
France’s Industry Minister Marc Ferracci went further, demanding a “biting” response from Brussels, which manages trade relations on behalf of the EU's 27 member countries.
"Trade negotiations with Donald Trump must assume a form of power dynamic," Ferracci told France Info on Sunday.
Given Trump's threats to impose tariffs against the EU, “it is obvious that we must react,” Ferracci said, although he added that “we are waiting for the American administration’s decisions on what will concern Europe.”
Ferracci added that for countermeasures to be effective, “the response must focus on products that are important” to the U.S and that "it must be 'biting,' meaning it should have an impact on the American economy to have a credible threat in negotiations." He called on Brussels to not be naive and draw up a “Buy European Act.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the benefits of open trade, but at the same time hinted that the EU has the ability to respond to any potential moves by the U.S.
“It’s important that we don’t divide the world with numerous tariff barriers,” Scholz said on Sunday after meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the U.K. The EU is "a strong economic area and has its own courses of action," Scholz said.
In contrast, German Finance Minister Jörg Kukies urged Europeans to keep calm and carry on. “One should not react to the first decisions with panic, but see them as the beginning of the negotiations and not as the end,” he was quoted as saying by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung during a trip to the Persian Gulf on Sunday.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani opted for a cautious tone, writing on X: "The tariff war is not good for anyone. ... We have ideas and strategies to protect our companies with Italy being the best ambassador for the EU in the dialogue with Washington."
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, described Trump’s tariffs as violating international law. The EU now has to prepare “to defend our economic interests 1:1,” he added, while calling on Brussels to “stabilize and quickly expand” trade relations with other countries.
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Saturday issued a video message telling people that there is “cause for concern but not for fear” after listing recent developments including irregular immigration, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Trump’s tariff threats.
Meanwhile, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt called the U.S. tariffs a “blatant attack on its own people and a gift to billionaires, all while tearing apart his closest allies.”
He added: “The EU must not bow to his bullying tactics.”
President Barack Obama in 2010 ordered federal agencies to prioritize hiring more people with disabilities. The Federal Aviation Administration incorporated such efforts into its diversity hiring program.
These efforts remained in place throughout President Donald Trump’s first administration. The FAA under Trump expanded its effort to hire people with disabilities, announcing in 2019 a program to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers.
Trump in 2018 eliminated an Obama-era assessment used in hiring air traffic controllers that scored applicants based on their work and education history and personality traits. Biden did not revive it.
By Caleb McCullough & Maria Ramirez Uribe
Hours after a plane crashed over the Potomac River a few miles from the White House, President Donald Trump held a press briefing in which he blamed his predecessors’ diversity hiring policies as a possible reason for the accident.
Sixty-seven people were presumed dead after an American Airlines passenger jet collided in midair with an Army helicopter near the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. The victims included three U.S. service members aboard the helicopter and everyone aboard the plane, including several young figure skaters, a civil rights lawyer, a newlywed, a pilot and several flight attendants.
Trump started his Jan. 30 press conference with a moment of silence but pivoted to blame Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who Trump said led Federal Aviation Administration diversity programs that inspired the agency to hire unqualified air traffic control employees. Trump said he ended those initiatives in 2017 when he was first elected, but Biden reinstated them.
Trump faults DEI hiring in plane crash and falsely describes FAA policies under Obama, Biden
If Your Time is short
President Barack Obama in 2010 ordered federal agencies to prioritize hiring more people with disabilities. The Federal Aviation Administration incorporated such efforts into its diversity hiring program.
These efforts remained in place throughout President Donald Trump’s first administration. The FAA under Trump expanded its effort to hire people with disabilities, announcing in 2019 a program to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers.
Trump in 2018 eliminated an Obama-era assessment used in hiring air traffic controllers that scored applicants based on their work and education history and personality traits. Biden did not revive it.
See the sources for this fact-check
Hours after a plane crashed over the Potomac River a few miles from the White House, President Donald Trump held a press briefing in which he blamed his predecessors’ diversity hiring policies as a possible reason for the accident.
Sixty-seven people were presumed dead after an American Airlines passenger jet collided in midair with an Army helicopter near the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. The victims included three U.S. service members aboard the helicopter and everyone aboard the plane, including several young figure skaters, a civil rights lawyer, a newlywed, a pilot and several flight attendants.
Trump started his Jan. 30 press conference with a moment of silence but pivoted to blame Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who Trump said led Federal Aviation Administration diversity programs that inspired the agency to hire unqualified air traffic control employees. Trump said he ended those initiatives in 2017 when he was first elected, but Biden reinstated them.
"I changed the Obama policy, and we had a very good policy," Trump said. "And then Biden came in and he changed it. And then when I came in two days, three days ago, I signed a new order, bringing it to the highest level of intelligence."
Trump read from a Fox News headline that said the Federal Aviation Administration diversity hiring initiative "includes focus on hiring people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities." Trump said it came out a week before he took office, but it was published Jan. 14, 2024. After the press conference, the White House also pointed to an Obama-era biographical assessment for air traffic controllers that critics said prioritized diversity over skills.
A close look at the FAA’s hiring policies under Obama, Biden and Trump shows that Trump mischaracterized the policies and misled about his actions and the actions of his White House predecessors. He also provided no evidence these policies had any connection to the fatal crash.
The crash has generated renewed concerns about air traffic controller staffing, and the cause remains under investigation. Experts warned against singling out any specific cause of the crash, including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, less than 24 hours after it occurred.
Trump expanded — not withdrew — a hiring initiative aimed at people with disabilities
In 2010, Obama’s administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to hire more people with disabilities, noting that although 54 million people in the U.S. have disabilities, they were underrepresented in the federal workforce. The FAA incorporated the directive into its hiring practices.
That didn’t stop when Trump took office in 2017. Archives of the FAA’s website show the agency continually highlighted its diversity hiring initiatives, including its aims to hire people with disabilities, from 2013 up until Trump reclaimed office in 2025, including throughout Trump’s first term, 2017 to 2021. The page was taken down after Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20.
During his Jan. 30 press conference, Trump maligned a list of "targeted disabilities," including severe intellectual disabilities, saying their emphasis in hiring was unique to his predecessors.
The term "targeted disabilities" is legally defined across the federal government to include "hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism."
Yet in 2019, also under Trump’s first term, the FAA launched a program that aimed to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers, including people who have these "targeted disabilities."
In its April 11, 2019, press release, the agency said the program’s key focus was to "identify specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, empower them and facilitate their entry into a more diverse and inclusive workforce."
After being sworn in for his second term, Trump on Jan. 20 and Jan. 22 signed executive orders aimed at shutting down diversity programs in the federal government, including the FAA.
The White House confirmed Jan. 30 that Trump’s executive orders did away with those goals.
Trump ended a controversial Obama-era hiring protocol, but Biden did not reinstate it
In 2014, the Obama administration launched a hiring assessment for air traffic controllers that weighed biographical information such as work and education experience and personality traits as part of a person’s application. The training standards for those who were hired didn’t change.
The assessment did not ask specifically about race, but critics said it was designed to create a more diverse hiring pool at the expense of people who were more qualified or performed better on skills tests. People who failed were not allowed to continue with their application. The FAA introduced the assessment into its hiring protocol in 2014 after it commissioned a study of the barriers racial minorities and women face in becoming air traffic controllers.
Throughout his first term, the Trump administration defended the Transportation Department in a lawsuit over the assessment, which plaintiffs said was discriminatory. Trump’s administration and Biden’s administration both denied in court that the process favored nonwhite applicants. Nevertheless, in 2018, Trump jettisoned its use of the air control biographical assessment, the White House said.
Biden’s administration did not reinstate the assessment, and it has not been a part of the application process since 2018.
All air traffic controllers undergo rigorous tests regardless of disability
All air traffic controllers need to pass skills and medical tests to be hired, air traffic management experts told PolitiFact. That didn’t change under either hiring initiative.
Some disabilities could be disqualifying, Margaret Wallace, an aviation management professor at Florida Institute of Technology, said. Some examples could include heart conditions or neurological issues that might unexpectedly incapacitate a person, or "poor or no vision, color blindness, poor or no hearing, speech issues that could affect the ability to communicate as needed," Wallace said.
Michael McCormick retired from the FAA in 2015 after working under Republican and Democrat administrations, and his work included hiring controllers. He said most of the conditions Trump listed would not meet the agency’s medical standards.
"The decision to hire a controller is solely based upon aptitude testing, medical certification and security investigation," McCormick said.
Our ruling
As he speculated about the Jan. 29 air crash’s cause, Trump said "I changed the Obama policy (on hiring air traffic controllers) ... And then Biden came in and he changed it."
The White House said he was referring to two separate policies.
The first was a push to hire more people with disabilities that started under Obama. Trump didn’t end the initiative — he expanded the effort by announcing a program aimed at hiring 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers. All air traffic controllers had to pass medical, security and skills tests, regardless of any disability.
The second involved an Obama-era hiring assessment that critics said prioritized diversity over qualifications. Trump was wrong to say that Biden reinstated it — he did not. The assessment has not been in place since 2018, when Trump ended it. But even under that practice, training standards did not change.
Trump conflated policies, obfuscated about his role in them and misled about what they did.
Investigators are still piecing together what led to the crash, a process that could take months. Trump’s leap to connect these policies to what unfolded over the Potomac has no basis.
U.S. President Donald Trump says he is 'not looking for concessions' from Canada as the White House confirmed he's going forward with 25 per cent levies on imports from Canada on Saturday. Trump added he will 'probably' set tariffs on Canadian oil at 10 per cent.
At news conference, Trump read a list of disabilities he calls disqualifying, but his administration started such hiring in 2019
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
“All qualify for the position of a controller of airplanes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot, a little dot on the map, a little runway.”
— President Donald Trump, decrying what he called DEI standards imposed by previous administrations, Jan. 30
In the aftermath of the deadly collision between a jetliner and a Black Hawk helicopter at Reagan National Airport, Trump held an extraordinary news conference during which he speculated on the cause of the accident. At length, he attacked former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for imposing what he called “a big push to put diversity” that he said weakened the Federal Aviation Administration.
Reading from a 2024 Fox News report — which he incorrectly identified as being two weeks old — Trump listed conditions that he suggested disqualify people from being air traffic controllers: “hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism.”
“Can you imagine?” he asked. “Brilliant people have to be in those positions, and their lives are actually shortened, very substantially shortened because of the stress.” He suggested that it was wrong for anyone with those conditions to qualify “for the position of a controller of airplanes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot, a little dot on the map, a little runway.”
But here’s the rub: During Trump’s first term, the FAA began a program to hire air traffic controllers with the conditions that Trump decried.
The facts
In the news conference, Trump said Obama weakened standards and “I changed the Obama standards from very mediocre at best, to extraordinary. … Then they changed it back — that was Biden.”
Trump’s claim was repeated in an executive order Trump signed Thursday that ordered a review of aviation safety: “During my first term, my Administration raised standards to achieve the highest standards of safety and excellence.”
That’s false. In his first term, Trump left the standards unchanged.
For air traffic controllers, the Obama administration in 2013 instituted a new hiring system that introduced a biographical questionnaire to attract minorities, underrepresented in the controller corps. The program was criticized, such as in a Fox News report in 2015, as making it harder for more skilled applicants to get hired as controllers.
But Trump, in his first term, left the policy in place, leading to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 by Mountain States Legal Foundation. The case was due to go to trial this year.
Moreover, the FAA under Trump in 2019 launched a program to hire controllers using the very criteria he decried at his news conference.
“FAA Provides Aviation Careers to People with Disabilities,” the agency announced on April 11, 2019. The pilot program, the announcement said, would “identify specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, empower them and facilitate their entry into a more diverse and inclusive workforce.”
The link under “targeted disabilities” is now dead, but the Wayback Machine retains links from June 2017 and January 2021 that show the page was unchanged during Trump’s tenure. The list included:
Hearing (total deafness in both ears)
Vision (Blind)
Missing Extremities
Partial Paralysis
Complete Paralysis, Epilepsy
Severe intellectual disability
Psychiatric disability
Dwarfism
The June 2019 webpage for the Aviation Development Program (ADP) — also now removed but still visible on the Wayback Machine — said the program “provides an opportunity for Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) to gain aviation knowledge and experience as an air traffic control student trainee.” Participants would get up to one year of experience in an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), with a possibility of getting a temporary appointment at the FAA Academy.
In August 2021, the FAA announced that one of the first three ADP candidates graduated from the FAA Academy and became an official air traffic control trainee. “Twelve candidates are in the pipeline for the ADP, pending completion of the clearance process,” the agency said. “Candidates must first pass the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA), followed by the security and medical clearance process.”
The announcement said the program was conceived when an air traffic manager met a quadriplegic student who had assumed he would never qualify to be a controller because of his condition. The FAA stressed that participants must meet the same qualifications as any other air traffic controller student.
A White House spokesman declined to comment.
The Pinocchio Test
Trump claimed that he had changed Obama’s criteria for hiring air traffic controllers with greater diversity — when in fact he left it unchanged. Moreover, he decried the fact that FAA hired controllers with a range of disabilities that he listed at the news conference. But that program was launched during his first term.
The figure would rain 1.5 billion condoms on an area only double the size of the District of Columbia.
by Glenn Kessler
“DOGE and OMB also found that there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza. That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer money. So, that’s what this pause is focused on, being good stewards of tax dollars.”
— White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, remarks at a news briefing, Jan. 29
In her maiden news briefing, Leavitt defended the Trump administration’s freeze on federal grants by pointing to a particular line item as “preposterous” — $50 million to fund condoms in Gaza.
Regular readers know that we have a high bar for fact-checking flacks, as they are paid to mislead and dissemble. We prefer to keep our scrutiny on policymakers and people with authority. But this was Leavitt’s first news conference, and she made an astonishing claim that spread rapidly on social media.
Could it be true? When we queried Leavitt, she responded by sending a Fox News article that initially just quoted her own statement. Quoting yourself is not evidence. Moreover, the article quoted an unnamed White House official as saying that the “State Department halted several million dollars going to condoms in Gaza this past weekend.”
That’s not the same as $50 million.
Last year, the State Department launched a five-year, $50 million program to improve health care in Gaza. But the contractor, Anera, said it was not supplying condoms.
“Definitely no purchase of condoms in our program, and there are no components for family planning in the GHRA [Gaza Health Recovery Activity],” spokesman Steve Fake said. “We have asked around, and no one is sure what this is referring to.”
Last night, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce posted a thread on X in which she cited examples of “unjustified and non-emergency spending.” The first example was “Condoms. Prevented $102 million in unjustified funding to a contractor in Gaza, including money for contraception.”
She did not identify the contractor, but, in an email to State Department reporters, her office said it was “$102,236,000 to fund the International Medical Corps in Gaza.” IMC is a global first responder based in Los Angeles.
Could half — or even a significant portion — of that contract be for condoms? There is no evidence of that.
The Facts
Let’s start with why the U.S. government distributes condoms overseas: It’s to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Perhaps the Trump administration believes that is a preposterous waste of money, but many of those condom purchases are for a George W. Bush program called the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which is credited with saving 26 million lives. No countries or territories in the Middle East are part of PEPFAR.
More broadly, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) distributes condoms to address gaps in their availability and use, especially in low- and middle-income countries, to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
A USAID report for fiscal 2023, the most recent detailing condom expenditures unrelated to PEPFAR, showed that about $46,000 was spent on condoms in the Middle East — but only in Jordan. The report said that was the first shipment of condoms to the Middle East since fiscal 2019, when $1 million was spent.
Indeed, according to the report, spending $50 million on condoms for an entity roughly double the size of Washington would be a huge increase in condom spending. From fiscal 2016 to 2022, USAID spent $118.6 million to buy 3.6 billion male condoms for 60 countries. That’s an average of $17 million a year for the entire world — one-third of the amount Leavitt said would be spent just on Gaza. (USAID also distributes female condoms, but that’s a small fraction of the spending.)
In effect, USAID has been buying condoms at an average price of 3.3 cents. Was the U.S. government really going to distribute more than 1.5 billion condoms in Gaza? That makes little sense.
Traditionally, family planning in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, was handled by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The agency distributed oral contraceptives and condoms, but President Joe Biden froze U.S. funding a year ago after Israel claimed that 12 of the agency’s 33,000 employees participated in Hamas’s 2023 attack on Israel.
The war that erupted after that attack created a family planning crisis in Gaza, according to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. “Contraception is also in very short supply, with reports of women sharing contraceptive pills leading to unintended pregnancies,” the IPPF said in a 2023 report. “The unavailability of condoms, which were already heavily restricted in Gaza, will lead to the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”
With the ceasefire now in place, it’s possible there is a pressing need to fill. But we could not find any evidence that the International Medical Corps contracts called for condom delivery.
Todd Bernhardt, IMC spokesman, told The Fact Checker that “no U.S. government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms.”
In a November report describing its activities in Gaza, IMC said it deployed two state-of-the-art field hospitals — the first in January 2024, with 200 beds, and the second in July 2024, with 50 beds. The hospitals operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Each day they see as many as 2,000 patients, perform an average of 45 surgeries and deliver an average of 10 babies, the report said. CBS News last year aired a report on American doctors working at the hospitals.
“Since January 2024, International Medical Corps has provided health care to more than 383,000 civilians who had no other access to services or treatment, including performing about 11,000 surgeries, with one-third of those categorized as major or moderate procedures,” Bernhardt said. “We have assisted in the delivery of some 5,000 babies, about 20 percent of them via the Caesarean section. In addition, International Medical Corps has screened 111,000 people for malnutrition, treated 2,767 for acute malnutrition, distributed micronutrient supplements to 36,000 people, and more.”
“If the stop-work order remains in place, we will be unable to sustain these activities beyond the next week or so,” he said.
White House and State Department officials did not provide further clarity.
The Pinocchio Test
On the face of it, Leavitt’s statement that $50 million was going to be spent on condoms is preposterous. That figure is three times the yearly average spent by the U.S. government for the entire world. Moreover, neither she nor the State Department could provide documentation supporting this claim. The department identified a contractor that it claimed was distributing condoms in Gaza, but the organization says no U.S. money is involved.
Leavitt earns Four Pinocchios. Not an auspicious debut.
Our research finds that conditions were placed on $12 million in Katrina aid, out of nearly $122 billion.
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
“If there is culpability for what happened, there really need to be conditions that follow that aid. It’s not unprecedented, by the way. After Katrina, in my state, there were conditions placed upon the funds. It happened after Hurricane Sandy, up in the northeast. There’s a tradition of doing this.”
— House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), remarks on “The Sean Hannity Show,” Jan. 21
Johnson signaled that Congress will impose conditions on aid to California after recent fires destroyed thousands of structures in Los Angeles. He accused Democrats in the state for making “decisions that made that disaster exponentially worse” and said Congress had a responsibility to ensure “they follow common sense in California” when aid is provided.
“What we are talking about here is restoring common sense, even in the state of California,” he said.
He sidestepped a question from Fox News host Sean Hannity about whether the conditions would include unrelated issues such as scrapping no-bail laws. Some Republican lawmakers have suggested refusing aid unless Democrats agree to hike the debt limit. President Donald Trump, in a visit to California, said he wanted to require the state to impose a voter ID law before he signed a bill providing aid. (Without evidence, Trump has claimed he would have won the state if it had laws requiring voters to show an ID before casting a ballot.)
For the purposes of this fact check, we’re interested in Johnson’s claim that conditions were placed on aid provided after Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana, his home state, in 2005 and after Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
The Facts
Trump, when he visited North Carolina last week, said he wanted to get rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and simply have states submit a bill for reimbursement from the federal government. But that’s already largely how the system works, with FEMA repaying states for most of their expenses during a natural disaster.
Congress then provides additional aid to help rebuild devastated areas and to fund improvements. Katrina and other hurricanes in 2005 caused such devastation in Louisiana and neighboring states — insured losses were estimated by insurance companies to total $57 billion — that 11 federal departments and four federal agencies provided nearly $122 billion in federal assistance to the Gulf Coast states, according to the Congressional Research Service.
As a matter of course, congressional appropriations for disaster relief have conditions that determine eligibility, but that’s clearly not what Johnson is talking about. Such bills also include demands for regular reports from agencies handling the funding.
Congressional appropriations often contain clauses that might withhold some funding unless certain parameters are met. We found that one Katrina bill authorized $12 million for a Louisiana hurricane protection study but stipulated the money would not be provided “until the State of Louisiana establishes a single state or quasistate entity to act as local sponsor for construction, operation and maintenance of all of the hurricane, storm damage reduction and flood control projects in the greater New Orleans and southeast Louisiana area.”
But this was a relatively minor condition regarding a small amount of money, given the overall size of the rescue package. We can find virtually no news coverage of this condition by Congress — and there was wide agreement the previous system did not work. Previously, five different levee districts operated as separate local sponsors for federally built flood protection. The state in 2006 established the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority to oversee the levee districts. Congress eventually provided $14.5 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to build a flood protection system that held firm in 2021 against Hurricane Ida.
As for the Sandy legislation, Republicans in 2013 sought to amend $17 billion in relief to require a reduction in unrelated domestic spending — but that amendment was defeated.
In defense of Johnson’s statement, his office pointed to the $12 million appropriation we had identified — which was rather minor in the context of almost $122 billion in aid. The office could not point to conditions on Sandy aid, and we couldn’t find any either.
His office also highlighted some bills that over time have added broad conditions to aid, such as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which required states and others to develop and update hazard mitigation plans as a condition to receive certain types of FEMA assistance, and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which required states to include a catastrophic incident annex in state emergency preparedness plans that are required as a condition for assistance. The office also noted that Congress has placed conditions on community development block grants, required cost-sharing by states and demanded oversight of spending.
But these are all general — not specific to a particular disaster such as the California wildfires.
The Pinocchio Test
Johnson suggested that congressional conditions imposed on aid after a disaster is “not unprecedented” and part of “a tradition.” As examples, he pointed to aid provided after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. But that’s greatly overstating the case. In Katrina, the only item we could find placed conditions on just $12 million in aid — out of tens of billions. We turned up nothing on Sandy.
In reality, the tradition is that, after a disaster, virtually no conditions are placed on aid that would require a state to make policy changes. What would be unprecedented would be tying the aid to policy adjustments that have nothing to do with the disaster, such as mandating voter ID.
An Indiana man who was recently pardoned for his participation in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was shot and killed during a traffic stop by a sheriff’s deputy Sunday.
By Associated Press
Matthew Huttle, 42, was involved in a traffic stop at 4:15 p.m. by a Jasper County sheriff’s deputy, authorities said in a news release. It alleged that Huttle resisted arrest and was found to have a firearm on him.
“An altercation took place between the suspect and the officer, which resulted in the officer firing his weapon and fatally wounding the suspect,” the release said.
Sheriff Patrick Williamson requested an investigation by the Indiana State Police. The deputy was placed on paid administrative leave in accordance with department policy, Williamson said.
“Our condolences go out to the family of the deceased as any loss of life is traumatic to those that were close to Mr. Huttle,” Williamson said in a statement. “I will release the officer’s name once I have approval from the State Police Detectives.”
No additional details were provided.
Huttle was identified by the Jasper County coroner, who completed an autopsy Monday morning.
Huttle was one of many people identified as having taken part in the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in which hundreds of President Donald Trump’s supporters broke into the building in an attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election.
Court records show Huttle entered into an agreement with federal prosecutors in August 2023, pleading guilty to a charge of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds. He was sentenced in November 2023 to six months in federal prison, followed by 12 months of supervised release.
That was rendered moot this month when Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 people who were involved in the Jan. 6 riot last week after he was inaugurated.
According to the complaint, Huttle was at the Capitol that day with his uncle, and investigators obtained videos uploaded to his own Google account of him there. He could be heard in one of his videos saying that a group of people were going to the Capitol and that he was “going to see if we can get inside.”
He was identified on security video inside the building, including inside the Capitol’s crypt, the complaint said.
Huttle’s uncle also agreed to a plea deal, court records show, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The complaint says he was identified on video assaulting officers with a flagpole on the steps of the Capitol.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci runs, did fund clinical trials evaluating HIV and AIDS treatments that enrolled HIV-positive children both in and out of foster care. But the report that found that 25 children in foster care died during trials did not find that the trials were the cause of their deaths.
By ANGELO FICHERA
CLAIM: Dr. Anthony Fauci funded experiments on orphans with AIDS and 25 of them died.
THE FACTS: A claim spreading on social media is targeting Dr. Anthony Fauci by misrepresenting the findings of a 2009 report focused on New York City foster children who were HIV-positive and participated in clinical trials related to treatments for their condition.
The website Unite America First published a headline: “Dr. Faucistein Funded Experimenting With AIDS Orphans…25 Died.”
The story claims that Fauci “funded a study in New York City, where they treated AIDS kids with experimental drugs, twenty-five of those kids died during the research.”
The 25 deaths figure comes from a 2009 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, later cited in the story.
But the story ignores a key finding in the Vera report: It explicitly says that “Vera medical staff did not find, however, that any child’s death was caused directly by clinical trial medication.”
The Vera report followed an investigation by the organization, prompted by concerns about the participation of New York City foster children in various clinical trials related to HIV and AIDS. The report identified 532 such children who participated in 88 clinical trials and observational studies between 1985 and 2005.
“Many children — inside and outside of foster care and clinical trials — died because of complications of HIV/AIDS during the late 1980s and 1990s,” the report reads. “Eighty of the 532 children who participated in clinical trials or observational studies died while in foster care; 25 of them died while enrolled in a medication trial.”
Tim Ross, a lead author of the Vera report, said in a phone interview that those suggesting the clinical trials were the cause of the 25 deaths were “completely misreading what we found.”
“Our report does not support that claim,” said Ross, now the managing partner of Action Research, a child welfare research group. He noted that children who participated in such trials were “incredibly sick” before the trials.
While Vera was not able to access state medical records, the group was able to find medical information through child welfare files, review other records and conduct interviews.
Of the 25 deaths of foster children who were in clinical trials, the report says that a “detailed review found that 22 of these 25 children had developed multiple AIDS related complications prior to their enrollment in a clinical trial.” Several had been enrolled in trials designed for those with multiple AIDS-related complications who had exhausted other treatment options.
While the Vera report was prompted by concerns surrounding the participation of New York City foster children in such trials, the clinical trials did not exclusively enroll foster children, Ross said.
Some trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, but more than 80 percent of the children considered in the Vera review participated in trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, according to the report.
The report says that the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci has directed since 1984, and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development both provided funding for trials.
The Vera report did identify some issues, such as some child welfare files missing consent forms for trials, and made various recommendations.
In a 2005 report preceding the Vera review, The Associated Press found that a significant number of foster children who participated in such government-funded trials were not provided an often-required independent advocate.
Hanoi city authorities are planning to significantly increase fines for 107 traffic violations, raising them by 1.5-2 times their current levels starting July 2025. This proposal, drafted by the city’s People’s Committee, is currently open for public consultation.
The fine adjustments will be based on several factors, including the frequency of specific violations, their contribution to accidents and traffic congestion, and their impact on public order and infrastructure. Violations targeted in the proposal include ignoring road markings, driving in prohibited areas, speeding, illegal parking, reckless or drunk driving, and modifying exhaust systems, among others.
Although the government already increased penalties for traffic violations at the start of 2024, Hanoi authorities believe further hikes are necessary to improve compliance, foster safer traffic behavior, and reduce congestion and accidents.
Under the draft resolution, fines for less severe violations will be doubled, while penalties for more serious infractions will rise by 1.5 times. Specific examples include fines for automobiles parked in areas with "No Parking" or "No Stopping and Parking" signs, which will increase from VND600,000-800,000 to VND1.2-1.6 million (US$48).
Driving in the wrong lane or exceeding the speed limit by 10-20 kph will incur fines that rise from VND4-6 million to VND8-12 million. Similarly, driving under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol level of ≤ 50 mg/100 ml or a breath alcohol level of ≤ 0.25 mg/l, will see penalties increase from VND6-8 million to VND9-12 million.
Motorcyclists not wearing helmets or improperly fastening them will face higher fines, which will double from VND400,000-600,000 to VND800,000-1.2 million. The same increased penalties will apply to motorcyclists carrying oversized or overweight goods.
For violations such as parking on bridges or traveling three to a motorbike, fines will increase from VND600,000-800,000 to VND1.2-1.6 million. Drunk motorcyclists with a blood alcohol level within the same range will face penalties increasing from VND2-3 million to VND3-4.5 million.
Hanoi’s initiative is supported by the 2024 Capital Law, which grants the city council the authority to set fines up to twice the national levels for certain violations. Once public feedback is collected, the resolution will be submitted to the people’s council for approval.
If passed, the new fines are expected to take effect from July 2025. This move underscores the city’s commitment to enhancing traffic safety and compliance through stricter enforcement measures.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's philanthropy organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, announced on Thursday that it will provide funding to cover the U.S. contribution to the U.N. climate body's budget. This move addresses the gap left by President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from international climate funding and the Paris climate agreement shortly after taking office earlier this week.
Michael Bloomberg, a media billionaire and U.N. special envoy on climate change, emphasized the importance of meeting global climate commitments. "From 2017 to 2020, during a period of federal inaction, cities, states, businesses, and the public rose to the challenge to uphold our nation’s commitments—and now, we are ready to do it again," Bloomberg said in a statement.
Bloomberg Philanthropies pledged to ensure that the United States fulfills its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which oversees global climate negotiations and the implementation of agreements like the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, specific details about the funding amounts or other participating climate funders were not disclosed.
The U.S. typically funds around 21% of the UNFCCC's core budget. In 2024, the U.S. paid 7.2 million euros ($7.4 million) toward its required contribution, as well as 3.4 million euros to clear arrears for missed contributions between 2010 and 2023. Despite this, a Reuters analysis revealed that the UNFCCC is experiencing a severe budget shortfall, which diplomats warn is disrupting global climate dialogue.
U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell expressed gratitude for Bloomberg Philanthropies' support and Bloomberg's leadership. "We deeply appreciate the generous support from Bloomberg Philanthropies," he said in a statement.
Linda Kalcher, executive director at think-tank Strategic Perspectives and former climate adviser to the U.N. Secretary-General, praised Bloomberg's initiative. She noted that U.S. states and businesses are likely to play a significant role in maintaining international climate cooperation. "This is where the other U.S. actors come in. I can foresee that a lot of interaction will happen again with the U.S. businesses and states that want to continue," Kalcher said.
Bloomberg Philanthropies is no stranger to supporting climate initiatives. Last year, it contributed $4.5 million to the UNFCCC, as reported in U.N. public documents reviewed by Reuters. The UNFCCC's main budget for 2024–2025 is approximately 240 million euros, with half allocated for this year.
In addition to financial contributions, Bloomberg pledged to work alongside U.S. states, cities, and businesses to ensure the country remains aligned with its global climate responsibilities, demonstrating a commitment to addressing the challenges left by the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
A German aerospace engineer celebrated setting a world record Friday for the longest time living underwater without depressurization -- 120 days in a submerged capsule off the coast of Panama.
Rudiger Koch, 59, emerged from his 30-square-meter (320-square-foot) underwater home to celebrate his achievement of setting a new world record for the longest time spent living beneath the sea. Guinness World Records adjudicator Susana Reyes was present to confirm that Koch had surpassed the previous record of 100 days, held by American Joseph Dituri, who resided in an underwater lodge in a Florida lagoon.
Reflecting on his 120-day underwater adventure, Koch expressed mixed emotions. "It was a great adventure and now it's over there's almost a sense of regret actually. I enjoyed my time here very much," he told AFP. Describing the serene beauty of life beneath the waves, he added, "It is beautiful when things calm down and it gets dark, and the sea is glowing. It is impossible to describe; you have to experience that yourself."
To celebrate his record-breaking feat, Koch toasted with champagne, smoked a cigar, and leaped into the Caribbean Sea before being picked up by a boat and taken ashore for a celebratory party.
Koch's underwater capsule, located 11 meters (36 feet) below the sea and 15 minutes by boat from northern Panama's coast, was equipped with essential amenities. It featured a bed, toilet, TV, computer, internet, and even an exercise bike. Electricity was supplied by solar panels on the surface, with a backup generator available. However, the capsule lacked a shower.
The capsule was connected to another chamber above the waves via a narrow spiral staircase enclosed in a tube, which facilitated food deliveries and visitor access, including regular visits from a doctor. Koch's daily life was closely monitored through four cameras that ensured compliance with the record's strict requirements and observed his mental health.
Susana Reyes explained the rigorous monitoring process: "We needed witnesses who were monitoring and verifying 24/7 for more than 120 days." She acknowledged the record's uniqueness, calling it "one of the most extravagant" achievements that demanded significant effort and dedication.
Koch, inspired by the fictional Captain Nemo from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, kept a copy of the novel by his bedside during the endeavor. Speaking halfway through his mission, he expressed hope that his achievement would challenge perceptions of human habitation. "What we are trying to do here is prove that the seas are actually a viable environment for human expansion," he said.
This extraordinary accomplishment highlights not only Koch's resilience but also the potential for innovative thinking about the future of human settlement.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has revised its stance on the origins of Covid-19, stating on Saturday that the virus is "more likely" to have leaked from a Chinese laboratory than to have been transmitted through animals. This marks a significant departure from the agency's previous neutral position on the matter.
The updated assessment follows the confirmation of John Ratcliffe as CIA director under Donald Trump’s second administration. Ratcliffe, who previously served as the director of national intelligence during Trump's first term, has been a vocal advocate of the lab-leak theory. In an interview with Breitbart published Friday, Ratcliffe emphasized that determining the origins of Covid-19 would be a priority for the agency, stating, "The agency is going to get off the sidelines."
A CIA spokesperson elaborated on the agency's findings, saying, "CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the Covid-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting." The statement further noted that the agency continues to consider both the lab-leak and natural transmission scenarios as plausible.
The shift in the CIA's position is reportedly based on a new analysis of existing intelligence, initiated by former CIA director William Burns before Ratcliffe's arrival. This analysis has brought the CIA's view closer to that of other U.S. agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Energy, which also support the lab-leak hypothesis, though with varying degrees of confidence. However, most of the U.S. intelligence community continues to lean toward natural origins.
Advocates of the lab-leak theory argue that the earliest known cases of Covid-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, a major hub for coronavirus research. They point out the proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the outbreak's epicenter and highlight the distance of approximately 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) between Wuhan and the nearest bat populations carrying SARS-like viruses, which would have been a natural reservoir for the disease.
This ongoing debate underscores the complexities and challenges in determining the definitive origins of Covid-19, as the intelligence community remains divided on the issue.
U.S. TikTok users, once drawn to the app as a haven for free speech, are expressing growing concerns about censorship after the platform’s recent revival. The app, owned by China's ByteDance, was revived under an executive order from President Donald Trump following its temporary shutdown over national security concerns. However, users have noted significant changes in how content is moderated.
The shutdown stemmed from a new law, passed during the Biden administration with bipartisan support, requiring TikTok to be sold to a U.S. buyer. Trump, promising to address the ban, hinted at potential buyers, including allies with close ties to his administration. Despite TikTok's assurances that its policies and algorithms have remained unchanged, users have reported noticeable differences in the app's functionality and moderation practices.
Many users have observed increased content moderation, including limited search results, warnings about misinformation, and prompts encouraging users to verify their sources. Content creators report that posts and comments previously allowed are now flagged or removed. For instance, phrases like "Free Palestine" and "Free Luigi"—referencing controversial topics—have reportedly been flagged or struck from the platform. TikTok stated it does not allow content that promotes violent or hateful individuals.
Pat Loller, a comedian and veteran with 1.3 million followers, shared his experience of content being limited after he posted a satirical video about Elon Musk. The video, tagged as misinformation, was restricted to sharing in only one chat at a time. Loller expressed frustration, noting that such limitations were unprecedented in his experience with the platform.
Some users, like Lisa Cline, have faced repeated issues attempting to upload videos critical of Trump. Cline said her posts were rejected multiple times on TikTok before she successfully uploaded them to other platforms like Meta’s Threads. Similarly, political and social commentator Danisha Carter, whose account had 2 million followers, reported that her account was permanently suspended after the app's shutdown. Carter described the decision as politically targeted, noting her final livestream criticized tech executives’ influence over U.S. politics.
The increased moderation has also affected non-political content. Ada "Mila" Ortiz, a data analyst and content creator, reported receiving strikes for seemingly innocuous comments. Ortiz, concerned about being permanently banned, chose to delete 15 videos that supported Vice President Kamala Harris and criticized Trump. She described the actions as sudden and random, leaving her feeling targeted.
These changes have sparked fears among TikTok users that the platform's moderation practices are influenced by political and ideological factors. Many creators worry that the app, once known for its diverse and open environment, is becoming increasingly restrictive, targeting individuals based on identity or past content.
The controversy highlights the tension between TikTok’s efforts to comply with evolving regulations and users’ desire for free expression. While Trump has positioned himself as a defender of free speech with his executive order, critics argue that the platform’s new moderation policies raise questions about the limits of freedom on digital platforms.
U.S. President Donald Trump has triggered a major diplomatic standoff with Colombia by imposing sweeping tariffs and sanctions in retaliation for Bogotá's refusal to accept U.S. military deportation flights. This development marks a dramatic escalation between the two nations, which have historically enjoyed close ties. The clash pits Trump’s hardline immigration policies against the defiant stance of Colombia’s leftist president, Gustavo Petro.
In his announcement, Trump declared a 25% tariff on Colombian goods, with plans to raise it to 50% within a week. This move targets Colombia’s exports, including coffee, a key product for the U.S. market. While Trump framed the tariffs as a punishment for Colombia’s "failure to meet its legal obligations" on deportations, critics pointed out that the two countries are bound by a free trade agreement, raising questions about the tariffs' legality.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio added to the pressure by announcing that the U.S. embassy in Bogotá would suspend visa issuance and impose travel restrictions on Colombian officials and their families. Rubio also stated that Colombian travelers would face heightened scrutiny at U.S. airports, signaling a broader diplomatic freeze.
President Gustavo Petro responded with a fiery rebuttal, refusing to back down under U.S. pressure. On X, Petro accused Trump of trying to dominate Colombia and announced reciprocal 25% tariffs on U.S. goods. He declared that U.S. military planes carrying deportees would be barred from landing in Colombia, although he offered to transport migrants using Colombia’s presidential plane to ensure they were treated with dignity.
Petro also criticized the U.S. for its treatment of deportees, asserting that Colombian migrants should not be criminalized. He urged the undocumented Americans living in Colombia—estimated at over 15,000—to regularize their status, while ruling out raids or forced deportations. Petro’s stance reflects his broader vision of treating migrants with respect, a position that has endeared him to some but drawn criticism from political opponents.
Domestically, Petro’s refusal to cooperate with Trump has sparked backlash from Colombian conservatives. Former President Iván Duque accused Petro of recklessness and warned that the U.S. tariffs and sanctions could have severe economic consequences for Colombia. The conflict comes at a time when Colombia's economy relies heavily on trade with the United States.
The dispute also highlights rising tensions between the U.S. and left-leaning governments in Latin America. Brazil, led by another leftist president, recently criticized the Trump administration for the treatment of Brazilian deportees, describing their inhumane conditions on U.S. deportation flights. Trump’s aggressive immigration policies appear to be straining Washington’s relationships with several nations in the region.
This diplomatic showdown underscores the stark ideological divide between Trump and Petro. While Trump continues his hardline crackdown on undocumented migrants, Petro is doubling down on his commitment to protecting the dignity of deportees and asserting Colombia’s sovereignty. The standoff could have far-reaching economic and political consequences, testing the resilience of one of Latin America’s most critical alliances with the United States.
South Korea's prosecutors have indicted impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol on charges of leading an insurrection after his brief declaration of martial law on December 3, the main opposition party confirmed on Sunday. This marks an unprecedented legal action against a South Korean president. If convicted, Yoon could face severe penalties, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty, though the latter has not been enforced in decades.
The martial law decree, which lasted only six hours, sought to ban political and parliamentary activity while imposing control over the media. The move triggered political turmoil in South Korea, Asia's fourth-largest economy and a key U.S. ally. Following the martial law incident, the prime minister was also impeached and suspended, and several high-ranking military officials were indicted for their roles in what prosecutors are calling an insurrection.
Yoon, a former top prosecutor, has been in solitary confinement since his arrest on January 15, making him the first sitting president in South Korea to face such a situation. His arrest came after a tense, armed standoff between his security detail and law enforcement officers. Prosecutors had earlier sought to extend his detention, but the court denied their requests twice. However, with the formal indictment now in place, they have renewed their push for continued custody.
Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has announced a week of free public transport in Bangkok, commencing February 25, to address the city’s critical air pollution problem.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport Suriya Jungrungreangkit revealed that this decision follows Bangkok's recent ranking as the fourth worst city globally for air quality, based on data from Swiss-based IQAir on January 24.
From February 25 to 31, residents and visitors in Bangkok will be able to travel without cost on buses and electric trains within the city. The Thai government has earmarked approximately 140 million THB ($4.1 million) from the central budget to subsidize transportation providers, including Bangkok Transit System Plc (BTS), Bangkok Expressway and Metro Public Company (BEM), and Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA).
To further tackle the pollution crisis, eight checkpoints have been established to monitor vehicle emissions across the city. Suriya expressed optimism that the free transport initiative could lead to a 20-30% increase in public transport usage during the trial period. If pollution levels show no significant improvement after the week-long program, the government will consider extending the measure.
The president errs on the budget and trade deficits.
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
In virtual remarks to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Donald Trump on Thursday spouted many false or misleading economic claims. Here’s a quick rundown.
“Because of [Biden’s] ruinous policies, total government spending this year is $1.5 trillion higher than was projected to occur when I left office just four years ago.”
This requires context. The Congressional Budget Office in 2021 projected federal spending would be $5.5 trillion in fiscal year 2025 — and now estimates it will be $7 trillion. But such projections are difficult five years in the future. For instance, under Trump, spending in fiscal year 2021 turned out to be $2 trillion higher than originally projected in 2017.
Most of the additional spending under Biden was mandatory — such as Social Security payments that adjust for inflation — and is not subject to annual appropriations by Congress.
“Likewise, the cost of servicing the debt is more than 230 percent higher than was projected in 2020.”
This requires context. The CBO in 2020 projected net interest payments of $325 billion in 2025, while they’re now estimated to be $881 billion. That’s an increase of 170 percent, higher than Trump’s figure. When the estimate was made, in January 2020, the covid pandemic that devastated government finances was just beginning.
Interest payments are made on the national debt issued by the United States. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Biden and Trump roughly mirrored each other in the amount of new debt they issued to the public in their respective terms.
“The inflation rate we are inheriting remains 50 percent higher than the historic target.”
Trump sidesteps that inflation has fallen significantly. The Federal Reserve sets a target of 2 percent for inflation and the consumer price index was 2.9 percent in December. That appears to be the source of Trump’s 50-percent claim. Complicating matters, the Fed relies on a different inflation gauge, Personal Consumption Expenditures, which in its last report rose 2.4 percent. But analysts now regard the inflation rate as stable.
“It was the highest inflation, probably in the history of our country.”
False. Inflation peaked at 9 percent in June 2022, while annual inflation was 7 percent in 2021, 6.5 percent in 2022 and 3.4 percent in 2023. This was not the highest in U.S. history. In Trump’s adulthood, inflation was 9 percent in 1978, 13.3 percent in 1979, 12.5 percent in 1980 and 8.9 percent in 1981 — and also 8.7 percent in 1973 and 12.3 percent in 1974. Inflation was 18.1 percent in 1946, the year Trump was born. Other periods in U.S. history had even higher inflation rates.
“We have, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits with the E.U. and nobody's happy with it.”
This is exaggerated. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the European Union was a little over $200 billion in 2022 and 2023, but it is on track to be higher in 2024, according to the Census Bureau. However, the United States has a surplus in trade in services, which reduces the overall figure below $200 billion. Trump tends to ignore trade in services.
“Canada has been very tough to deal with over the years, and it’s not fair that we should have a $200 billion or $250 billion deficit.”
This is exaggerated. The trade in goods deficit with Canada has consistently hovered between $50 billion and $70 billion per year, according to the Census Bureau. Trump in his remarks disparaged Canada, saying that “we don’t need their lumber” and “we don’t need their oil and gas.” The United States is on track to be a net exporter of lumber by 2027 and Canada’s lumber imports to the U.S. have fallen in recent years because of increased duties. The United States is a net exporter of petroleum, but Canada supplies above half of imported oil, far outpacing Mexico and Persian Gulf nations.
“We’ve been having massive deficits with China. Biden allowed it to get out of hand. He’s $1.1 trillion deficits.”
This is highly exaggerated. China has a trade surplus of $1.1 trillion with the entire world, but the U.S. in the first 11 months of 2024 had a goods deficit with China of $270 billion, according to the Census Bureau. That is a decrease from $350 billion in 2021 and $382 billion in 2022, but the full-year figure will likely exceed $279 billion in 2023 — the lowest since 2010. Under Trump, the goods trade deficit with China was $375 billion in 2017, $418 billion in 2018, $342 billion in 2019 and $308 billion in 2020 — when trade fell because of the pandemic.
“I'm also going to ask all NATO nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP [gross domestic product] which is what it should have been years ago.”
The math would be costly for the United States. According to NATO, the United States in 2024 spent 3.38 percent of its GDP on defense. That was higher than any NATO country but Estonia (3.43 percent) and Poland (4.12 percent). Using percentage of gross domestic product is an imperfect measure because it penalizes countries with a large, strong economy like the United States. (The CIA says the U.S. ranks only 25th in the world in military spending under this measure.) The United States would need to boost defense spending to $1.4 trillion to reach 5 percent of the current U.S. economy, an increase of $460 billion per year. That’s almost a 50 percent boost.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
