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.

12,754 published reviews in this topic

USA TODAYPolitics & government

Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23; Trump donates all his salary, Melania has a staff of 4.

Publisher’s rating: Partly false

The review examined a viral meme posted by the Facebook page “Donald Trump Fan Club,” which compared Barack and Michelle Obama with Donald and Melania Trump. It checked two claims: that Obama donated none of his presidential salary while Trump donated all of his, and that Michelle Obama had 23 staff members while Melania Trump had four. The review reports that presidents’ annual salary is $400,000 and that Trump took $1 each year from his paychecks, donating the remainder to different government agencies by fiscal quarter. It also notes that Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy donated their salaries, so Trump was not the first president to do so. (“U.S. presidents make $400,000 a year.” “Trump takes just $1 each year from his paychecks.” “Both Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy donated their salaries, as they entered office wealthy like Trump.”) The review says Obama did donate money while president, contrary to the claim that he gave away none of his salary. Citing a Forbes analysis of his 2009–15 tax returns, it reports about $1.1 million in charitable donations, including $392,000 to the Fisher House Foundation. It adds that Obama donated the $1.4 million he received after winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. These figures establish that “none” is inaccurate; they do not mean he donated his entire presidential salary. (“According to a Forbes analysis of the former president’s 2009-15 tax returns, Obama donated about $1.1 million to various charities while he was president.” “On top of the $1.1 million, Obama donated all of the $1.4 million he received after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.”) For staff sizes, the review consulted the 2020 annual report to Congress on White House office personnel and cited Forbes’s confirmation that Melania Trump had 11 staff members. It cautions that the report’s count of roles explicitly titled as connected to the first lady did not include everyone working for her. For Michelle Obama, it cites a spokesperson’s statement that her staff was closer to 25, and reports Laura Bush’s staff was between 24 and 26. Thus, Michelle’s staff was larger, but the meme’s figures of 23 and four do not match the figures the review reports. (“Forbes confirmed in June that the first lady has 11 people on her staff.” “A spokesperson for her confirmed to PolitiFact in 2011 that the first lady’s staff size was closer to 25.”)

Deutsche Presse-AgenturPolitics & government

Angela Merkel soll nicht nur die Enkeltochter von Adolf Hitler gewesen sein. Hitler sei außerdem in Wirklichkeit der Enkel des Juden Salomon von Rothschild. Das jedenfalls wird bei Facebook derzeit in Postings einer als Stammbaum Merkels präsentierten Grafik behauptet.

Publisher’s rating: Angela Merkel ist mit Hitler nicht verwandt. Und auch nicht mit der Familie Rothschild.

The claim concerns a Facebook graphic presented as Angela Merkel’s family tree. It asserts that Merkel’s mother, Herlind Kasner, was the daughter of Adolf Hitler and his niece Angela Maria Raubal, and that Hitler himself descended from the Jewish banker Salomon Meyer Freiherr von Rothschild. The original review examines both branches of that claim. For the alleged Merkel–Hitler link, the review identifies Merkel’s maternal grandparents as Gertrud Alma Jentzsch, born Drange, and teacher Willi Jentzsch—not Raubal and Hitler. It also reports that Raubal died by suicide in Munich on 18 September 1931, aged 23, and never gave birth. The review notes that rumours she was pregnant by Hitler were never substantiated; they do not establish that she had a child who could have been Merkel’s mother. For the Rothschild claim, the review traces Hitler’s paternal line through his father Alois, who was born out of wedlock to Anna Maria Schicklgruber. It describes uncertainty over whether Alois’s biological father was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler, but says either possibility lies within the Hiedler/Hüttler family line. The review adds that there is no indication Schicklgruber and Salomon von Rothschild ever met. Its account therefore provides no support for the asserted Rothschild descent.

USA TODAYPolitics & government

Donald Trump said, 'Some Africans are lazy fools only good at eating, lovemaking and stealing'

Publisher’s rating: False

USA TODAY examined a social-media claim attributing the words “Some Africans are lazy fools only good at eating, lovemaking and stealing” to Donald Trump. The review traced the claim to a purported 2015 news article, which said Trump made the remarks in Indianapolis. The review noted that the article supplied no date or context for the alleged Indianapolis speech, and that its quotations shifted between references to Africans and African Americans. To check the setting, the review accounted for Trump’s public activities on Oct. 25, 2015: it reported that he appeared on three Sunday political programs, described his Twitter posts about those appearances, and said he planned to travel to New Hampshire that night. It also found no apparent public appearance by Trump in Indianapolis that month. The review reasoned that remarks of the kind alleged would likely have drawn national attention, given the coverage Trump was receiving at the time. The review found no evidence that Trump made the quoted statement or the other remarks attributed to him in the circulated article. It reported that the purported story had been republished by Nigerian and Zimbabwean websites, citing Politica, which the review describes as a fake-news site, and that Politica had deleted the original. The review also noted that the claim had been debunked when it circulated in 2015.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: MK Stalin not speaking in Hindi

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigated a social-media video presented as showing DMK leader M.K. Stalin speaking at a moment when he was “strongly fighting against Hindi.” It says the clip was shared by the Facebook page IT&SM BJP Kanyakumari on September 8, 2020, and that the framing could mislead viewers about both the language he spoke and the event’s purpose. The review identifies the speech as a clip from a large opposition leaders’ rally in Kolkata on January 19, 2019, organized by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. To check the clip’s provenance and the claim about its setting, the reviewers searched for related news and video, then located a full recording of Stalin’s speech. In that recording, Banerjee introduces him by saying he will speak in Tamil and that it will be translated into Bengali. The review reports that Stalin begins with a few sentences in Bengali and then continues in Tamil; it also says the footage under investigation appears in that recording. This comparison supports the conclusion that the clip does not show Stalin speaking Hindi. The review further distinguishes the rally from an anti-Hindi event: it describes the gathering as an opposition leaders’ public rally, and notes that leaders including Akhilesh Yadav and Arvind Kejriwal were among the participants. It concludes that the social-media post’s description of the clip as a moment of Stalin fighting against Hindi was false. The finding addresses the video and its caption; it does not establish that Stalin never opposed Hindi in other circumstances.

FACTLYPolitics & government

A Muslim league MLA in Kerala fixed Pakistan flag on the bonnet of his car

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a social-media post showing a green car with a flag on its bonnet and alleging that a Muslim League MLA in Kerala had fixed the Pakistan national flag to the car. The review concluded that the flag in the image was not Pakistan’s national flag but the flag of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a political party based in Kerala. The review describes its checks: a reverse-image search found no information about the car on websites, after which the investigators compared the flag visible in the image with the Pakistan national flag and searched for political-party flags that looked similar. They identified the car’s flag as IUML’s. The article says the IUML flag is similar to Pakistan’s national flag, but does not describe the similarity as proof that the car belonged to an MLA or that the flag was Pakistan’s. The decisive distinction in the review is between two flags that can look alike: the pictured flag was identified as the IUML party flag, not Pakistan’s national flag. The excerpt does not identify the car’s owner, so it does not establish who placed the flag on the bonnet. Its conclusion addresses the central claim about the flag’s identity, rather than attributing the car to a named MLA.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturPolitics & government

In een post op Facebook wordt gesteld dat een "politieke partij die eerst verboden was ..nieuw leven is ingeblazen". Bij de post is een uittreksel geplaatst uit het nieuwe programma van de Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (PNVD). Daarin wordt onder meer gepleit voor de opheffing van leeftijdsgrenzen voor seks met wederwijdse instemming. Critici omschrijven de PNVD als "pedopartij", ook in commentaren bij de posting.

Publisher’s rating: De PNVD is weliswaar weer actief. Maar de partij is niet verboden en nooit verboden geweest.

The Facebook post described the Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (PNVD) as a political party that had first been banned and was then brought back to life. The review says the post included an excerpt from the party’s new programme, which advocated removing age limits for sex by mutual consent. It also notes that critics called the PNVD a “pedopartij.” The review distinguishes the PNVD from Martijn, an organization that the Dutch Supreme Court banned in 2014 after it advocated legalizing sex with younger children. The PNVD, by contrast, had unsuccessfully tried to participate in parliamentary elections in 2006 and 2010, then dissolved itself in 2010 because it had not gathered enough supporting declarations. It was therefore not a party that had been banned and subsequently restored. The review reports that the PNVD became publicly active again in August 2020 and published a programme advocating “no age limits” for sex by mutual consent. A spokesperson for the National Public Prosecutor’s Office told dpa that there had been no court ruling declaring the PNVD illegal. The review also describes public opposition to the party’s return, including a petition seeking a ban; it distinguishes that demand from an actual legal ban.