Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Politics & government fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about politics & government. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

12,746 published reviews in this topic

Folha de S.PauloPolitics & government

Postagem no Twitter diz que o deputado federal Deltan Dallagnol (Podemos-PR) justificou seu voto contra a igualdade salarial entre homens e mulheres dizendo que “não era de Deus”. Segundo o post, ele teria afirmado que “mulheres devem se resignar em ganhar menos. A submissão ao homem deve ser até na remuneração. Está na Bíblia.”

Publisher’s rating: Sátira

The post attributed to @GloboFakeNews claimed that federal deputy Deltan Dallagnol justified voting against equal pay for women and men by saying it “was not of God,” and that women should accept earning less. The review found that Dallagnol did vote against bill 1085/23, which would equalize pay for men and women doing the same function or work of equal value. The bill had passed the Chamber and was awaiting Senate consideration. But the investigation found no record that he gave the quoted justification—or any other explanation for his vote—and found no social-media posts by him about the bill. The Chamber session record for May 4, when the bill was approved, showed that Dallagnol did not speak. His press office also told the review that the plenary session was virtual and he had not spoken at the lectern. The review therefore distinguishes the documented vote from the post’s unsupported account of what he supposedly said. The investigation also examined the post’s provenance. It described @GloboFakeNews as a satirical profile, noting that its bio said it published “the truth revealed through fake news” and that its other posts targeted conservative politicians and public figures. The review concluded that the viral claim originated as satire, rather than as a recorded statement by Dallagnol.

YouturnPolitics & government

உட்காரலாமா அல்லது உட்காரக்கூடாதா.. சோனியா காந்தி தன்னிடம் உட்காரலாம் என்று சொல்ல மறந்துவிட்டாரா அல்லது உட்காரலாம் என்று சொல்லாமல் அவரைப் புறக்கணித்துவிட்டாரா என்று வியப்புடன் மல்லிகார்ஜுன கார்கே கைகளை பிசைகிறார்.

Publisher’s rating: False

Boatos.orgPolitics & government

Barroso sugere confisco de investimentos da classe média ao STF e PT?

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerned a video presented online as proof that Supreme Court Justice Luís Roberto Barroso wanted the PT and the STF to confiscate middle-class fixed-income investments. Boatos.org says it searched for Barroso’s remarks and found a ConJur publication containing his full statement. In that statement, Barroso posed a hypothetical: what if a rule made the high middle class’s investments earn less than savings accounts because the country needed to fund social investments? He then said, “O mundo ia cair” (“the world would fall apart”). The review’s key contextual point is that Barroso was comparing that hypothetical with a proposal concerning the FGTS, Brazil’s workers’ severance fund. According to the review, the comparison concerned a fund earning less than a savings account and being held for government policies. It says the video’s framing turned this hypothetical into a claim of confiscation, although Barroso did not say investments would be confiscated. Boatos.org also reports that it searched for reliable sources showing Barroso had proposed confiscating middle-class investments and found none. It says the judgment that prompted his remarks was not about that subject; the review describes his point as an argument that the FGTS should earn at least what a savings account earns. Thus, the quoted remarks and the stated FGTS context do not support the circulated interpretation.

Boatos.orgPolitics & government

Biden solta pum após apertar mão do Rei Charles III durante coroação

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim was that Joe Biden passed gas and had an accident while shaking King Charles III’s hand at the coronation, as supposedly shown in a circulating video. The review says the video was edited, rather than footage of Biden at the event: “A partir da história, a Fox News fez, em um programa ‘de humor’, uma montagem do suposto pum de Joe Biden ao apertar a mão do Rei Charles III.” It adds that someone later reused that montage, added smoke effects and posted it on TikTok. The review traces the video’s backstory to a different alleged incident. It says British tabloids had reported in November of the previous year that Biden passed gas near Queen Camilla in 2021, and notes that Snopes had described that earlier story as unsubstantiated. The review presents the coronation video as a later reuse of the Fox News montage, not as independent footage verifying either allegation: “A história é, na realidade, um grande telefone sem fio.” A further problem with the claim’s setting is that Biden was not at the coronation. The review states that Jill Biden attended, while Joe Biden called, and says no U.S. president had attended a British royal coronation. That directly contradicts the premise that he shook hands with the king at this event. The review therefore concludes that the video is a montage and that Biden was not present at the coronation.

dpaPolitics & government

Ierland neemt een wet aan die het illegaal maakt om niet-mainstream media te lezen.

Publisher’s rating: Een Iers wetsvoorstel, momenteel dus nog geen wet, moet mensen die haatzaaien en aanzetten tot geweld strenger aanpakken. Het gaat dus niet enkel om 'niet-mainstream' media maar elke openbare uitspraak die dit doet. De mensen die de boodschap ontvangen of lezen zijn hiermee niet strafbaar.

The claim concerns Ireland’s Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill. The review says the measure was still a bill, not a law, when it examined the claim. The Dáil had passed it the previous week by 110 votes to 14, and it was then before the Seanad. That legislative stage matters: the claim describes a law already enacted, while the review says the proposal had not completed the process. [S1] The proposal targeted people or organisations that incite violence or hatred against people or groups with specified characteristics, including race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. It was not a ban on reading non-mainstream media. The review explains that the provisions could apply to material shared through any kind of media—from newspapers and podcasts to social-media posts—when the relevant conduct met the bill’s requirements. Thus, non-mainstream outlets were not singled out; the scope described was broader and concerned the content and conduct, not a media category. [S1] The review also distinguishes people who communicate or distribute prohibited material from people who encounter it. It says readers and listeners would not be punished simply for receiving or reading a hateful message. For the bill’s section 7, the review describes sharing material that incites violence or hatred in public or to the public, with intent—or reckless conduct that incites it—as the relevant offence. The review further notes that the bill included free-expression defences. Taken together, the excerpt supports the conclusion that the claim misstates both the bill’s status and whom it would penalise. [S1]

日本ファクトチェックセンターPolitics & government

LGBT差別禁止法があるのはG7でカナダだけ

Publisher’s rating: 不正確

The review says the claim is misleading: G7 countries have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including laws that address those grounds within broader anti-discrimination frameworks. It notes that Canada explicitly lists both grounds in its Human Rights Act, while the UK, France and Germany also address them in their laws; Italy has such protections at the local level. The review distinguishes these broader protections from laws devoted specifically to LGBT discrimination.