In the leadup to America’s 250th birthday, an Ultimate Fighting Championship event at the White House became a platform for a long-debunked claim targeting a former first lady.

After winning a bout, UFC fighter Josh Hokit used his post-fight interview with Joe Rogan to amplify the claim that former first lady Michelle Obama isn’t a woman.

"And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?" Hokit said.

News reports said the remark drew some laughter from the audience.

PolitiFact has fact-checked various versions of the claim that Obama is or was a man, dating back to 2020. There remains no evidence. Obama, born Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, was never a man. 

In attempts to prove the conspiracy theory, people have circulated altered images of Obama, an out-of-context video clip of Obama’s podcast interview with actor and comedian Marlon Wayans and an unverified voter registration card. Other fact-checkers have also debunked the narrative.

UFC CEO Dana White told Time in a text message, "I understand that the Obama’s are public figures but I’m completely against saying nasty and false things about people’s families."

Other powerful women, such as France’s first lady Brigitte Macron and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have also been targeted with claims they are men. Experts told PolitiFact such conspiracy theories seek to undermine their power and achievements.

We contacted Hokit and receive no response.

We rate his claim that Michelle Obama is a man Pants on Fire!

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Rising artificial intelligence demand has led to a nationwide construction boom of power-hungry data centers in recent years, driving concern about rising utility costs. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently called for raising taxes on companies building data centers and said they’ve increased electricity bills for Americans.

"If you live near one of these large data centers, your electricity bills over the last five years have gone up by as much as 267%," Warren said in a June 5 X post.

Warren used that same figure in a December 2025 letter she and other senators sent to tech firms when announcing an investigation into their effect on utilities costs. The letter cited a September 2025 Bloomberg article analyzing data centers’ effects on electricity prices.

That article found that wholesale prices in locations near data centers have risen, in some places, by "as much as 267%" compared with five years ago. But that figure was referring to the rate utility companies pay producers, not the rates people pay to the utility companies for their monthly residential electric bills. 

Warren’s office pointed us to reporting from CBS News and Fortune that also mischaracterized the Bloomberg analysis as an increase in consumer bills. 

Warren’s office also provided examples of reporting on residents’ energy bills in states like Virginia and Maryland with sizable month-over-month increases last winter, in some cases doubling or tripling compared with the previous year or months. Some articles cited data center demand, along with abnormally cold weather, as causes of the increases. 

Residential electricity prices have risen in the last five years, and data center demand is a big driver in some areas. But Warren’s specific figure misrepresented the data.

What is included in a residential electricity bill?

The Bloomberg article analyzed local pricing points, called nodes, on the power grid, and found wholesale prices at some nodes near data centers increased by 267% between April 2020 and April 2025. Looking at the broader market, wholesale prices have more than doubled in some markets since 2020, the article said, while prices elsewhere have risen less sharply. 

That local wholesale price is not the same rate residents pay, Kenneth Gillingham, an economist at Yale School of the Environment, said. 

"There are other parts of the electricity bills, and the wholesale nodal electricity prices only raise the ‘supply’ component of electricity bills," he said in an email to PolitiFact.

The supply cost makes up about 30% to 50% of a consumer’s electricity bill, Gillingham said. Other components include the cost of transmission, distribution and taxes. 

Wholesale prices are often passed on to all the grid’s customers, including businesses. Utility companies often need to get rate increases approved by state regulators before passing that cost on, Gillingham said. 

Data centers have increased electricity bills

On average, residential electricity costs across the U.S. have risen by 42% in the last five years, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Data centers aren’t the sole reason, but they’ve been a major driver in some places where costs have risen the most. 

Between March 2021 and March 2026, average residential retail electricity prices rose 94% in Washington, D.C., 74% in Maryland, 73% in Maine, and 58% in New York, according to the federal energy data.

In some regions, wholesale capacity markets — in which power plants are paid to be available based on expected demand — have been a contributor to price increases. PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, has seen record-high capacity prices three years in a row.

The Independent Market Monitor for PJM reported in 2025 that "data center load growth is the primary reason for recent and expected capacity market conditions, including total forecast load growth, the tight supply and demand balance, and high prices."

The report found that current and projected data center demand increased capacity costs by $9.3 billion, or 174% for the 2025-26 delivery year, compared with a scenario with no data center demand. 

Reports from the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and the District of Columbia Public Service Commission pointed to data center load as one cause of rising electric bills. 

Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, said Warren has a broader point that consumers could be subsidizing the data centers. 

"Data centers are causing tens of billions of dollars of price increases in wholesale power markets and driving utilities to spend tens of billions of dollars on delivery infrastructure," Peskoe said. "In general, these cost increases are spread to all ratepayers by the utility."

Costs are likely to continue increasing without policy changes. One 2024 study found that data center demand increases without investment in generation and transmission capacity could increase electricity rates in Virginia by as much as 70% in the next decade. 

Data centers aren’t the sole cause of rising electricity prices. Other factors include equipment costs, an aging energy grid and clean energy requirements, according to a 2026 report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a federally funded research center. 

Our ruling 

Warren said, "If you live near one of these large data centers, your electricity bills over the last five years have gone up by as much as 267%."

The figure she cited referred to wholesale prices, not the prices residential consumers pay every month. Wholesale prices are part of just one component of a residential electricity bill — the "supply" component, which makes up about 30% to 50% of a consumer’s electricity bill. 

Warren’s statement has an element of truth because data centers have driven up electricity costs, and average consumer prices have nearly doubled in areas such as the District of Columbia. 

But her statement gives the wrong impression about the precise effect on consumers’ utility bills so far. We rate it Mostly False. 

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

When President Donald Trump traveled to Suffern, New York, for a rally, he introduced the crowd to Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, the expected Republican nominee for governor. Trump praised Blakeman for blazing a new trail for Republican politicians in Nassau County, a populous, largely suburban district on Long Island, when he won the county executive race in 2021.

"Nassau County, it's all Democrat," Trump said at the May 22 rally. Referring to Blakeman, Trump said, "You know, when he ran years ago, he ran in Nassau. They said, you got to be kidding. It doesn't happen. No Republican wins in Nassau. And he ran and won."

It’s possible that’s the reaction Blakeman received. But it’s not the Republicans’ reality — they’ve performed well in Nassau. Seven Republicans have won the county executive position, compared with three Democrats.

Lawrence Levy — who covered Long Island politics for the local newspaper, Newsday, then became executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Long Island’s Hofstra University — dismissed Trump’s assertion as "almost laughable."

It would "certainly puzzle Nassau county Democrats who, aside from the occasional spurt of success in county and town races, have been spanked red far more often than not," Levy told PolitiFact New York.

When we reached out to the White House, a spokesperson directed us to Trump’s comments. We also reached out to Blakeman’s team but did not receive a response.

The political patterns in Nassau County throughout history

The strongest argument for Nassau County’s Democratic bona fides is its record in presidential elections. Trump won the county in 2024, but in doing so, he became the first Republican to accomplish that since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Downballot is a different story: Democrats and Republicans have both been successful for congressional and federal offices.

Portions of Nassau County have often been represented by Republicans in the House. Republican Peter King held a House seat that included portions of the county for two decades, from 1993 to 2013. Republican George Santos held King’s seat briefly before being expelled for lying extensively about his background.

Republican Andrew Garbarino has held a different district that includes Nassau County since 2021, and Republican Anthony D’Esposito held a different, more Democratic-leaning district from 2023 to 2025.

Who has won the Nassau County executive post?

Blakeman’s county executive post has been held more consistently by Republicans.

Blakeman ousted Laura Curran, a Democrat, in 2021. In the big picture, Curran was an exception: Democrats have occupied the Nassau County executive post for about 20 years out of the past 88. Here’s the list:

• J. Russell Sprague, Republican, 1938-52

• A. Holly Patterson, Republican, 1953-62

• Eugene Nickerson, Democrat, 1962-70

• Ralph G. Caso, Republican, 1970-78

• Francis T. Purcell, Republican, 1978-87

• Thomas Gulotta, Republican, 1987-2001 

• Tom Suozzi, Democrat, 2002-09

• Ed Mangano, Republican, 2010-17

• Laura Curran, Democrat, 2018-21

• Bruce Blakeman, Republican, 2022-present

Blakeman had previously served as presiding officer of the Nassau County Legislature. On the election day in which he won the executive office, Nassau County Republicans also flipped control of the county’s district attorney and comptroller offices, which Newsday characterized as "a complete sweep."

Our ruling

Trump said that when Blakeman ran for Nassau County executive, the general sentiment was that "no Republican wins in Nassau."

On the presidential level, Nassau County voted Democratic between 1992 and 2020. But for other offices, it has been competitive between the parties, and the position of county executive has generally been dominated by Republicans. Of Nassau County’s 10 county executives, seven of them have been Republican.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores information that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, often touts bipartisanship and moderation. The word "bipartisan" appears 2,635 times on her official website. But her Democratic rival, Graham Platner, said she is a rubber stamp for the Republican president.

"If you are an independent voice, why do you vote with Donald Trump 95% of the time?" Platner said, addressing Collins during his June 9 Senate primary victory speech. 

That number matches a respected analysis of senators’ votes in 2025, although Collins sided with Trump at a slightly lower rate during his first term. However, a percentage in isolation disregards that Collins has opposed Trump on some key issues.

Collins largely aligned with Trump’s position in 2025

Collins' 2025 votes supported Trump’s position 94.6% of the time. Among Republicans, only Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska supported Trump less frequently than Collins. Republican senators supported Trump at record levels; most Republicans voted 100% with Trump. 

The percentage comes from CQ Roll Call, a nonpartisan source that has examined congressional votes and presidential support since 1953.

Members’ scores reflect how often they vote in agreement with the president’s position. The analyzed votes are a fraction of all votes that Congress takes.

During Trump's first term, Collins sided with Trump about 90% of the time.

Not all votes are equal  

Congressional experts said the percentage doesn’t tell the full story about a lawmaker’s record.

Mark D. Brewer, a University of Maine political science professor, said the CQ metrics are legitimate measures and useful to voters, but they have two drawbacks. 

"First, they do not register if a member fails to vote on a bill (obviously not a problem for Collins)," Brewer wrote in an email to PolitiFact, a nod to the senator reaching her historic 10,000th vote without missing a roll call vote. "Second, and more important, they treat all measures that the president has taken a position on the same. Obviously some bills matter more to a president than do others, but that is not accounted for here."

Collins has taken some high-profile votes against Trump. In 2026, she sided with Democrats to block a nearly $1.8 billion weaponization fund for Trump allies. In April, she voted in support of a resolution directing the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran.

In 2025, Collins was one of three Republican senators who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Collins said she supported extending tax relief for families and small businesses, but primarily opposed the legislation because of "the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes."

Weeks later, Trump said on Truth Social: "Republicans, when in doubt, vote the exact opposite of Senator Susan Collins. Generally speaking, you can’t go wrong."

She opposed Trump during his first term on some major votes. After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Collins voted to convict Trump on an impeachment charge. She said his actions interfered with the peaceful transition of power and were an abuse of power.

As Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Collins has the power to shape federal spending. During Trump’s current term, Collins opposed $1 billion in White House ballroom funding and objected to the administration's proposed cuts for biomedical research.

Bipartisan analysis is another way to measure her record

Another useful metric is the Bipartisan Index Rankings, a partnership of the Lugar Center and Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The index measures the frequency with which a lawmaker co-sponsors bills offered by the other party and how often they attract or recruit co-sponsors from the other party for their own bills. The more often lawmakers collaborate with members of the other party on bills, the higher their score.

Over the last 13 years, Collins has ranked first on the index among Republicans.

These analyses don’t capture other ways senators can influence outcomes on measures that never reach a vote.

In 2025, the White House withdrew its nomination of Dave Weldon as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hours before his Senate hearing. In a statement to The New York Times, Weldon, a former Florida congressman, blamed Collins and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La.

Collins said she "had some reservations, but I certainly had not reached a final judgment." 

Our ruling

Platner said Collins votes with Trump "95% of the time."

That was a reference to CQ’s analysis of her votes in 2025. During Trump’s first term, she sided with Trump on about 90% of votes.

Focusing on this percentage alone omits that Collins has opposed Trump on some key measures. 

We rate this statement Mostly True.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks in the 2026 midterms

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Shortly before abruptly ending his "Meet the Press" interview, President Donald Trump wrongly pointed to California’s ballot counting pace as evidence of "a rigged election." 

When Trump said the state was still counting ballots days after the June 2 election, host Kristen Welker said, "That’s how they count the votes in California." 

Trump said: "Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election."

Welker asked Trump for his evidence that the election was rigged.

"All I have to do is look," Trump said, adding, "And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens."

After more back and forth, Trump called Welker’s show and network "crooked," saying, "Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough." Shortly after, he walked out of the interview, bringing it to an abrupt end.

The California primary featured multiple races, including for governor and Los Angeles mayor. California typically takes longer than other states to count ballots, which is largely a function of the state’s laws and reliance on voting by mail. 

Trump’s interview was recorded June 5, three days after the election. As of mid-afternoon California time June 8, about 72% of the votes were counted in the governor’s race showing Democrat Xavier Becerra in the lead followed by Republican Steve Hilton.

We asked the White House for information showing that the California election is rigged and how that relates to ballot counting. A spokesperson referred us back to the president’s comments. 

For years, Trump has repeatedly spread falsehoods about "rigged" elections, including in California. Trump’s not alone in his criticism of the pace of California counting ballots, however, he distorted what it means. It’s not a sign of widespread cheating.

California laws set the pace of the count

In California, a state with about 23 million registered voters, election officials mail ballots to all active voters. In 2024, about 19% voted in person.

It takes time to process mail ballots, including election workers verifying identity by matching signatures on the envelopes with registration records.

The state Legislature in 2025 shortened the timeframe for counting ballots, requiring counties to count most ballots by June 15, nearly two weeks after the primary. County election officials have 30 days to process some ballots including provisional ballots.

Many voters turn in their ballots on Election Day, experts say. The state counts ballots postmarked by Election Day that are received by counties within seven days after the election.

County elections officials must report their final results to the secretary of state by July 3 and the state will certify results by July 10.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, pointed to other factors that affect ballot processing time in the state’s 58 counties, including the election staff’s capacity, equipment and space. 

Even if counties had the money to add more equipment and staff, many don’t have the space, Alexander said. The foundation, along with Protect Democracy United, which works to build public confidence in elections, proposed that the state spend $91 million on additional county funding for equipment, space and staff as well as for voter outreach and education promoting early ballot return.

Alexander said that the pace of the count is not proof the election was rigged.

"But there is plenty of evidence that long vote counts undermine voter confidence," and California should better explain that it is prioritizing access, security and accuracy, Alexander said. 

California also requires a mandatory 1% manual tally for all jurisdictions, which also slows the process but is a security measure in addition to post-election audits, said Lisa Bryant, a Fresno State professor and expert on election administration.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has defended California’s system.

"Accuracy comes before speed," Weber said in a statement days after the primary. 

The ballot counting has drawn interest in part because in the nonpartisan Los Angeles mayor’s race, Democrat Nithya Raman pulled ahead of Republican Spencer Pratt for second place. Mayor Karen Bass has remained in first place with the majority of votes counted.

Federal prosecutors said they are investigating fraud in CA election

There is anecdotal evidence of fraud in elections, but historically not enough to change the outcome.

Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee and first assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, wrote on X that his office has "multiple election fraud investigations underway" but provided no details. In another post, he pointed to the 2026 case of Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, who agreed in May to plead guilty on a charge related to paying a homeless person to register to vote. 

Essayli has challenged the state’s election laws and questioned whether the state is keeping voter rolls up to date, including removing dead people. The federal government is in a legal battle with California and other states seeking their full voter rolls. 

Our ruling

Trump said the ongoing ballot counting in California means "they’re cheating on the election." 

The pace of counting ballots in the June 2 primary is in accordance with the state’s election laws. Those policies apply to all voters regardless of party. 

Most Californians vote by mail, with about 19% voting in person in 2024. County election officials count most ballots in 13 days but have 30 days for some ballots. It takes time to process mail ballots, including election workers veryifying identity by matching signatures on the envelopes with registration records.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire!

RELATED: Trump’s promise to count all votes on election night stalls as related case heads to Supreme Court

RELATED: All of our elections fact-checks including California

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

An Election Night data reporting lag in California fueled misinformation and false claims of voter fraud in the Los Angeles mayoral primary. 

Several X accounts shared similar claims in the days following the June 2 election, saying an update showed 24,000 new ballots reported in the mayoral primary, with former reality TV star Spencer Pratt receiving zero. 

Pratt, the Republican favorite in the nonpartisan mayoral primary for the heavily Democratic city, was polling as one of the top three candidates in the leadup to the election, along with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman. The top two candidates will advance to the November general election.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., shared the same claim, and Elon Musk amplified another version of it.  

The claim came as President Donald Trump repeatedly said, without evidence, that Democrats are committing election fraud in the California primary. 

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles that Trump has said is investigating alleged fraud, said the claim that Pratt received zero votes in an update is false. 

"We reviewed official county records. The claim is false. Each candidate received votes in every update," Essayli wrote on X. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office told the Los Angeles Times Pratt had received votes in each of the updates the office reported.

There was a claim circulating on social media about an election night ballot update at the Los Angeles Registrar of Voters where one candidate received zero votes.

We reviewed official county records. The claim is false. Each candidate received votes in every update.

My office…

— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) June 6, 2026

Automated data lag from media outlet muddled vote totals

The 24,000 ballot claim originated from numbers momentarily reported on news websites, not from official Los Angeles County reported results. On websites that draw from The Associated Press’s vote totals, an initial count showed a total of 308,878 counted votes, and a later update at about 8:35 p.m. Pacific Time displayed 333,712, a 24,834-vote difference. 

But the update did not include all results reported by the county at the time, which led to websites briefly displaying zero new votes for Pratt. 

The cause of the discrepancy was a lag in the AP’s vote count system that counted other candidates’ vote totals before counting Pratt’s, an AP spokesperson said. 

"Specifically, an electronic update from the Los Angeles County website pulled in votes for only one group of candidates, including Karen Bass and Nithya Raman," AP spokesperson Patrick Maks said in an email to PolitiFact. "Exactly one minute later, the electronic update picked up the votes for another group of candidates including Spencer Pratt."

Maks said those two updates included 21,870 votes for Pratt, 12,850 votes for Bass and 9,521 votes for Raman. 

A review of multiple data sources, including The Ballot Book and a GitHub project that scrapes each update from the government election website, shows the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office never reported a batch of results with zero votes for Pratt. 

That matches what was reported at the time by outlets like Decision Desk HQ and VoteHub. The Ballot Book, an independent California election data outlet, shows the same results in its log of the 8:35 p.m. update. 

No ballot batch with zero Pratt votes

The update in question at around 8:35 p.m. Pacific Time was the first one after an initial results announcement at 8:15 p.m. The initial results showed: 

• Karen Bass: 117,579

• Spencer Pratt: 86,323

• Nithya Raman: 61,949

The 8:35 p.m. update added 48,433 new votes to the count, with the top three candidates receiving votes as follows: 

• Karen Bass: 12,850

• Spencer Pratt: 21,870

• Nithya Raman: 9,521

After that update, the candidates’ new totals were: 

• Karen Bass: 130,429

• Spencer Pratt: 108,193

• Nithya Raman: 71,470

Screenshots used as evidence for the claim show 130,429 votes for Bass and 71,470 votes for Raman after the update, but show Pratt’s total at 86,323. That’s in line with the AP’s explanation of the data being updated out of sync. 

Our ruling

Social media posts said Pratt received zero votes out of 24,000 in a vote update during the California mayoral primary tally. 

The narrative originated from numbers that were momentarily reported on news websites, not from official Los Angeles County reported results. The media site reporting was based on a momentary data lag. Pratt received votes in each election update. 

We rate this statement False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

A magnitude 7.8 earthquake off the southern Philippines on June 8 local time has killed at least 35 people, injured hundreds and destroyed buildings.

Online, people shared real footage of the destruction, but one video was captioned misleadingly.

"7.8 earthquake hits the Philippines today!!" a June 7 X post read, containing a video that showed people fleeing and screaming while debris fell from the building’s ceiling. It gained more than 488,000 views within 16 hours of being posted. 

The footage was not taken during the June earthquake; it captured a different earthquake that shook the Philippines two years ago.

Reverse-image search showed this video was uploaded by multiple accounts on Nov. 17, 2023, when a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck the nation’s south. That earthquake killed 11 people.

PolitiFact was unable to find the original 2023 post, but a couple of accounts credited the video to "Dave Miles." The captions pinpoint the location to a mall in General Santos City, which is consistent with photos posted by a news outlet. 

Either way, the video is not from June in the Philippines. We rate that False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Amid unsubstantiated claims of a rigged California primary, amplified by President Donald Trump, social media users shared an image of a blue-haired person in an all-black outfit, holding multiple pieces of folded paper in front of a ballot box.

"Do you still not believe California is using people to ballot harvest?" read a June 5 X post featuring the image. The same day, another X post said the image was taken at a ballot box in Glendale, California; and posts on  Facebook and Threads with the image said it showed a "California voter" who "identifies" as many "different people." 

The image does not show a real incident or person; it was created using artificial intelligence. It contained the logo of Gemini, a Google AI tool, on the bottom right corner. 

(The photo’s bottom right shows the logo of Gemini, a Google AI tool.)

When we uploaded the image to Gemini, it found that the image was "edited or generated with Google AI." Images generated with Google’s AI tools contain SynthID, a digital watermark that is invisible to humans but detectable by Google’s technology.

(The text on the ballot box also featured warped letters and misspellings.)

We found no news reports or other evidence that this was a real incident.

Trump has falsely claimed that voting by mail means cheating, but his claims about the use of drop boxes and ballot harvesting for fraud have been exaggerated. 

California law outlines security measures for securing drop boxes; they are often placed in public locations, with constant video surveillance. The state allows voters to designate another person to return their ballots, while following requirements.

This image of a person stuffing ballot boxes in California is fake. We rate it Pants on Fire!

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Votes in the Los Angeles mayoral primary on June 2 are still being counted, but some social media users — and President Donald Trump — are already contesting the potential outcome and suggesting it’s fraudulent.

Conservative influencer Rogan O'Handley, known as @DC_Draino on X, in a June 7 post said: "Nithya Raman already gave a concession speech. Think about that. Not even she believed it was possible to make the top 2. But greedy machine Dems are still pumping her fake votes to get Spencer out of the top 2. Insane levels of fraud."

The latest election results update on June 7 shows that incumbent mayor Karen Bass is leading, followed by city councilwoman Nithya Raman and Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV personality. Raman moved to second place in the latest update after an early vote count June 2 showed her out of the running. The top two in the race will advance to a Nov. 3 runoff.

Raman spoke on election night before the release of any initial results. C-SPAN titled her speech a "concession speech," but at no point during her remarks did she concede. There are also no concession speeches or messages in her official social media campaign accounts.

Raman on election night thanked the city, her campaign and family, and spoke about campaign challenges and victories.

"Tonight may not give us a final answer on this race. Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead. We may not get an answer we like. But regardless of what happens next, nobody can take away what all of us have built together," Raman said.

She cried as she thanked her 10-year-old twins for their patience and said her campaign was intended to build a better city worthy of every child. She didn’t give the impression she was crying because she lost the race or because she was leaving it.

On June 8, Trump shared on Truth Social an X post from U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., saying California elections aren’t fair because Raman was projected as one of the top two primary winners.

"No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!" Trump wrote.

During a June 7 interview on NBC News "Meet the Press," Trump also said the California primary elections were fraudulent. 

"The (2020) election was rigged. It was a dirty election. And it’s happening again right now in California," Trump said. "It’s four days and they aren’t even close to coming up with the — do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election."

The 2020 presidential election wasn’t rigged. There’s also no evidence that the California primary elections are rigged. 

In the interview, Trump referred to how long it takes California to count the ballots and the changing election results. But this isn’t unusual. 

After election night, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber reminded voters in a June 4 memo that although voting ended June 2, the counting process continues for up to 30 days after the election, in accordance with state law. 

Weber said election results will change throughout the counting period as county election officials process votes by mail, provisional ballots and other ballots. This is normal as some mail in ballots are counted even if they were received seven days after the election, but are postmarked on election day. Last year, during a statewide special election, more than 80% of Californians voted by mail. 

County elections officials must report their final results to the secretary of state by July 3; the election results will be certified by July 10.

Our ruling

Social media users said Raman had conceded the Los Angeles mayoral race as of June 7.

C-SPAN titled a June 2 speech by Raman a "concession speech," but at no point during her remarks did she concede. Raman said that on that night her campaign might not get the results it wants, but she also said votes were still being counted.

Raman is still in the mayoral race as one of the possible top two contenders for the November runoff, and vote counts days past election day are the norm in California because of state laws.

We rate this claim False. 

PolitiFact Senior Digital Research Analyst Jeff Cercone contributed to this report.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Iowa Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ashley Hinson released an ad immediately after the June 2 primary that said her Democratic opponent, state Rep. Josh Turek, supports "sex changes" for minors.

The ad makes two similar but distinct claims. Its narration says Turek "supports kids changing gender without parental consent." But the on-screen text says "sex changes for kids," while video of surgeons in an operating room plays behind an image of Turek. Hinson’s social media post sharing the ad also used the phrase "sex changes for kids."

"Sex change" is not a standard medical term. Gender-affirming care can include a range of approaches to support a person's gender identity including, for minors, using a different name or pronouns. According to medical best practices, gender-affirming treatments are available only to adolescents and can include puberty blockers, hormone therapy and in rare cases, surgeries for older teens. Medical intervention for minors requires parental consent.

The ad distorts Turek’s position. The law cited in the ad as evidence does not mention medical interventions or "sex changes." It has to do with notifying parents when a student expresses a different gender identity at school.

Although the ad showed video of surgeons operating, Hinson campaign spokesperson Addie Lavis said the ad was not referencing gender-affirming surgeries. In an email to PolitiFact, she said the ad was using gender and sex "interchangeably as is the case under Iowa law and nowhere do we mention surgery."

Iowa law addressed school accommodations, not medical treatment

The ad cites Iowa's Senate File 496, a 2023 law that regulated school library books with explicit themes and prohibited instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation. Turek voted against the bill. The Republican-led Legislature passed the bill and Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed it into law. 

The law requires school districts to inform parents if a student requests "an accommodation that is intended to affirm the student's gender identity," including requests that employees "address the student using a name or pronoun" that differs from the school’s records. 

Iowa is one of several states that has enacted laws requiring schools to notify parents if students express a different gender identity at school. Supporters of the new laws say parents have a right to make decisions for their children, while many LGBTQ+ advocacy groups say sharing that information with unsupportive parents could be harmful for the children.   

Hinson campaign spokesperson Lavis also pointed to Turek's vote against the state’s 2025 health and human services budget bill. One of that bill’s provisions blocked Medicaid from paying for gender-affirming hormones or surgeries. That law dealt with reimbursement, not whether minors can receive the procedures or whether parents must be notified. 

Iowa lawmakers had already prohibited medical gender-affirming procedures for minors in 2023. Turek was not present for the vote on that bill, and the Iowa House Journal shows he was granted a leave of absence that day.

Citing the American Medical Association — which said in February that gender-affirming surgeries should "generally be reserved until adulthood"  — Turek campaign spokesperson Hannah Goss said he does not support gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

Dustin Hornbeck, a University of Memphis professor who has written about parental rights in education policy, said it's inaccurate to say the Iowa parental notification rules relate to "sex changes."

"Characterizing a parental notification policy about names and pronouns as involving 'sex changes' conflates two legally and practically distinct categories," he said in an email. "These laws concern how schools communicate with parents about student identity, not medical procedures."

Medical treatment generally happens outside of school with health care providers and, for minors, involves parental consent, Kathryn Watson, an education researcher who wrote about the effects of the Iowa law on school practices, said.

"The only time these would ever overlap is if a student had to take a hormone pill at school," Watson said in an email. "This would require parental consent and be administered by the school nurse."

Our ruling

A Hinson ad said Turek supports "sex changes for kids." The ad's context includes medical treatments and surgery.

Although the ad included video of a surgery, a Hinson campaign spokesperson said the ad was not referencing gender-affirming surgeries.

The ad cites a law’s provision that requires schools to notify parents if a student wants to identify with a different gender. That law did not mention "sex changes" or medical treatment. Turek voted against that bill.

A separate bill the same year banned gender-affirming medical treatments for minors; Turek was absent from the vote. His campaign said he opposes such surgeries for minors.

We rate the claim False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Cannabis has been legal for medical purposes in New York state since 2016, and it became legal for recreational use since then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation in 2021.

Coffee, on the other hand, has been legal for centuries. 

Has cannabis use in New York state caught up to coffee in just a couple years?

That’s what John Kagia, acting executive director for the New York’s Office of Cannabis Management, said in an April 2 interview with Politico, for an article marking the law’s fifth anniversary.

"The number of New Yorkers who consume cannabis daily or near daily is the same as the number of New Yorkers who buy coffee from a coffee shop daily or near daily — 1.2-plus million people," Kagia said.

Kagia’s office told PolitiFact New York that the 1.2 million figure came from the New York State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual telephone survey of adults developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey found that in New York, 6.7% of adults aged 21 or older reported consuming cannabis daily or near daily. 

Applying that 6.7% figure to New York’s population of slightly over 20 million, and adjusting for the percentage of the population that is 21 or over, puts the figure at roughly 1.2 million.

But what about coffee drinkers? That’s less clear.

Kagia’s office told PolitiFact New York that they were relying on a 2024 study conducted by Drive Research that found that 8% of Americans said they buy coffee from a coffee shop every day. 

"It’s in the same ballpark as the percentage of Americans who grab a coffee on the way to work each day," said the Office of Cannabis Management’s chief medical officer, Dr. June Chin.

But that study does not address whether New Yorkers’ coffee behavior matches the nation. If the percentage holds for New Yorkers, that means about 1.6 million buy coffee outside their home nearly every day.

Other research suggests that consumption of store-bought cups of coffee is higher than cannabis use.

A 2018 Siena College Research Institute poll found that 48% of New York state adults said they drink coffee daily (42%) or five or six days a week (6%).

That’s a rate seven times higher than daily cannabis users, according to the more recent survey. However, the Siena College question did not ask the respondents whether they "buy coffee from a coffee shop" — as Kagia’s comparison phrased it — or made their own cup at home.

In June 2025, the publication Coffee Intelligence reported that 70% of customers were brewing their own cups at home. If that percentage held for New York state, then about 14% of the Siena poll’s respondents would be drinking coffee from outside their house five to seven times a week.

That would be about 2.8 million New Yorkers, or more than twice the level of daily or near-daily cannabis use reported in the CDC-designed survey.

Separately, the National Coffee Association found a higher percentage; the group’s 2026 national study found that 66% of Americans drink coffee daily. Using the same percentage of people buying their coffee at stores as Coffee Intelligence found, that would be nearly 20% buying coffee every day, or about 4 million, more than three times as high as the rate for cannabis.

"While there may be some estimates out there, this seems like a very difficult thing to calculate," said Mason Tvert, a marijuana rights activist and a partner at the consulting firm Strategies 64 in Denver. 

Ironically, Tvert said, the cannabis-coffee comparison has a long history among anti-cannabis activists, of which Kagia is not one. Cannabis critics, Tvert said, frequently claim that jurisdictions have more marijuana stores or dispensaries than Starbucks outlets as a way of saying cannabis sales have spiraled out of control.

Our ruling

Kagia said, "The number of New Yorkers who consume cannabis daily or near daily is the same as the number of New Yorkers who buy coffee from a coffee shop daily or near daily — 1.2-plus million people."

A 2024 survey showed that about 1.2 million New Yorkers age 21 and older consume cannabis daily or near daily. But the estimates of New Yorkers who buy coffee daily are all higher, some significantly so. In addition, estimating New Yorkers’ coffee patterns is tricky because most data is national, not state-level.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow criticized an economic development program during a May debate, saying the state has shelled out billions for corporate subsidies but has little to show for it. 

"Michigan has spent more than $2.5 billion on incentives to companies since 2019, and so far, that fund, the (Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve) fund, has created zero jobs," McMorrow said during the May 28 Democratic primary debate. McMorrow supported the fund in 2021 but has since backed away from it, citing a lack of resulting jobs.

McMorrow, chair of the Michigan Senate’s Economic and Community Development Committee, is running for U.S. Senate in Michigan. Her opponents in the Democratic primary include former public health official Abdul El-Sayed and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens.

Since Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, took office in 2019, she has focused on recruiting businesses to the state through subsidy and incentive programs. Her administration’s flagship program is the Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve Fund, or SOAR.

To back McMorrow’s statement, her campaign pointed to local reporting that said the state had pledged $2.5 billion of SOAR money to companies and other organizations. "SOAR cost billions and largely failed to deliver for Michiganders," McMorrow campaign spokesperson Jackson Boaz said.

Publicly available state data shows that about $2.2 billion has been approved for projects, and $1.3 billion has been spent. The state announced the first awards from the fund in 2022, not 2019. Companies self-reported creating at least 1,800 jobs; the state said it plans to verify that once milestones are reached.

How much has Michigan spent on SOAR?

State lawmakers created the SOAR fund through a series of 2021 bills and initially allocated $1 billion. Later state budgets provided more funding. 

Bridge Michigan, a local news outlet, reported that $2.5 billion in spending had been approved from the program. PolitiFact was not able to independently verify that figure. 

But not all of that has been spent. In 2025, state lawmakers stripped the program of future funding because of dissatisfaction with outcomes, but the previously budgeted amounts remained in place.

The SOAR funding is split into two pots: the Critical Industry Program, which pays companies to encourage hiring in Michigan, and the Strategic Site Readiness Program, which gives grants to economic development groups to prepare industrial sites. The site readiness grants aren’t paid directly to companies nor are they tied to a promised number of new jobs, but groups often have a company in mind when developing a site. 

As of October 2025, Michigan officials had spent $1.3 billion between the two programs, according to a report from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a public-private partnership agency that administers the SOAR fund. The fund spent $720 million on company subsidies tied to promised jobs, and another $590 million on site preparation. The Michigan Economic Development Corporation declined to comment for this report.

The latest official tally of approved funding, which includes grants that have been awarded but not spent yet, sits at close to $2.2 billion, according to the development agency’s report.

Eric Lupher, president of Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a nonpartisan public policy center, said it’s reasonable to consider money committed to specific projects as money "spent" by the state. The work has been contracted, and the money will be spent when it’s complete, he said. 

"One way or another that money’s going to go out the door," he said. "Some of it’s sitting in an account waiting for the check to be cut when the time is right." 

But, Lupher said he’d have "some hesitancy" to judge the program’s effectiveness at creating jobs based on projects that are in progress. 

"You sort of have to wait for that facility to be up and running for a few years to let the dust settle and then look at it in its totality," he said.

To receive the full awarded funding, companies have to meet certain benchmarks and hiring standards. Some deals have already fallen apart, including a deal with electric vehicle maker Gotion to build a battery factory in Big Rapids. In that case, the state attorney general is trying to claw back $23.7 million that a development group passed onto Gotion from the site selection fund.

How many new jobs did SOAR create?

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s report said companies receiving SOAR incentives reported creating 1,846 jobs by October 2025. The companies promised a combined 14,559 jobs over several years.

Most of the jobs so far came from one company, Solar Technology LLC, which is building a 1 million-square-foot factory in Saginaw County. The company reported 1,244 jobs linked to a $68 million state investment. Other projects that reported new jobs included battery factories being built by Ford Motor Co. and LG Energy.

The jobs are self-reported. Because none of the job verification deadlines under the grants have happened yet, the state-verified count of jobs is zero, the report said. The first of those milestones, with Solar Technology, is not until December 2027.

Our ruling

McMorrow said, "Michigan has spent more than $2.5 billion on incentives to companies since 2019, and so far, that fund, the SOAR fund, has created zero jobs."

The SOAR fund has committed more than $2 billion toward attracting companies to create jobs in Michigan; since 2022, about $1.3 billion has been spent on companies and economic development groups. 

Companies reported creating more than 1,800 jobs. The state has not verified the jobs number yet.

We rate McMorrow’s claim Half True.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico has accused his competitor, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, of being lenient on criminals who sexually abuse children.

Talarico, an educator and Democrat state lawmaker, told CBS News on May 27 that his Republican rival "should stop giving Epstein-style sweetheart deals to pedophiles," a reference to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The next day, Talarico’s campaign posted a social media ad on X showing TV clips about the Hoffman case.

"Adam Hoffman abused a little boy for 3 years," the post said. "He should have faced life in prison — but Ken Paxton and his wealthy lawyer friends let Hoffman off the hook."

Paxton faced similar attacks from Republicans during his primary race against Sen. John Cornyn.

News coverage and court documents show that Paxton’s office approved a plea deal that allowed Hoffman to avert a lengthy sentence and avoid the sex offender registry. Prosecutors offered the agreement after the victim said he didn’t want to testify at a new trial following a hung jury.

The Paxton campaign sent PolitiFact a May 15 letter explaining prosecutors’ rationale; it did not answer PolitiFact’s other questions.

Plea deal followed a hung jury

In 2022, authorities arrested Adam Dean Hoffman, a Waco attorney, on a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony punishable by up to life in prison. The charge applies if the offender commits two or more acts of sexual abuse over more than 30 days against someone under 14.

The state attorney general’s office handled the case after McLennan County District Attorney Josh Tetens recused himself because Hoffman sought Tetens’ legal advice before Tetens took office as prosecutor. Tetens ultimately did not represent Hoffman.

Hoffman’s 2025 trial resulted in a mistrial after the jury was hung 7-5 over whether to convict. When a jury is unable to unanimously agree, the case can be retried. But in Hoffman’s case, the victim said he did not want to testify again, so prosecutors reached a plea deal. In a letter prosecutors wrote to a lawmaker who questioned the deal, they said they did not want to force the victim to testify a second time. 

"Although our office had no pathway to prove the elements necessary to secure a felony conviction without the child’s testimony, we did secure jail time for his abuser and admission to a lesser offense," the prosecutors wrote.

The victim, a boy who was a friend of Hoffman’s son, told an investigator that Hoffman raped him at Hoffman’s home. He told an investigator the abuse started when he was around 6 years old and included touching, oral sex and anal sex, according to a prosecutor’s court document.

Hoffman confessed to ‘indecent assault’ 

Some factors made prosecution more difficult. For example, a Waco police officer interviewed the child even though best practice is for a child abuse expert to conduct the interview. In another instance, the boy recanted a statement he had made about Hoffman having guns at home. 

The boy’s mother told journalists that prosecutors met with her and her son about 10 months after the hung jury and said they wanted to offer Hoffman a deal to plead guilty to two misdemeanors: indecent assault and display of harmful materials to a minor, according to an article by The Texas Tribune and other outlets. Those charges do not require a defendant to register as a sex offender.

An April court filing shows Hoffman signed a judicial confession saying he committed indecent assault in 2022: "I did then and there, with the intent to arouse or gratify my sexual desire, touch (the victim’s) genitals" and "acted without the complainant’s consent," it reads. The victim was identified in that confession by his initials but his age was not included.

Prosecutors initially suggested one day in jail as part of a plea

Prosecutors agreed to credit Hoffman for time served, which amounted to one day following his initial arrest.

The child’s mother told reporters that prosecutors told her they would like her to accept the offer but could proceed without her. She said she reluctantly agreed.

During an April 16 hearing, Roy Sparkman, a visiting judge who had served as a district judge, balked at the deal.

"One day. Seriously?" Sparkman said. "Somebody has to sell me on the wisdom of it." 

After a court recess, the prosecutor proposed a new agreement that included 30 days in jail and Hoffman surrendering his law license.

The prosecutor told the judge that the family accepted the plea deal.

"All right," Sparkman said. "The court obviously has some reservations, but I want to respect the family’s wish."

The deal drew scrutiny from the public and officials. Tetens, the local prosecutor who had recused himself, said in a Facebook post April 26, a day before sentencing, that his office "shares the public’s concern and frustration over how the Hoffman case was resolved."

At the sentencing hearing, Sparkman asked the boy’s mother if she agreed to the deal.

She answered "no." "It’s just not enough," she said. "He’s dangerous. This isn’t justice, and I can’t do it." 

Sparkman increased the sentence to 60 days and required Hoffman to surrender his law license for five years. He served 29 days. 

Our ruling

Talarico’s campaign said on X that "Adam Hoffman abused a little boy" and Paxton "let Hoffman off the hook." 

Hoffman was charged with a felony, continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial ended in a hung jury. State prosecutors in Paxton’s office agreed to a plea deal in which Hoffman pleaded guilty to misdemeanors that did not require him to register as a sex offender.

In a signed, written confession, Hoffman said he touched the victim’s genitals with the "intent to arouse or gratify my sexual desire" without the victim’s consent.

The statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True. 

PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

RELATED: In Texas Senate race, Ken Paxton falsely claims James Talarico is a vegan

RELATED: Did James Talarico say US border should have ‘a giant welcome mat’? Ken Paxton ad omits full remarks

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

President Donald Trump recently celebrated what he called an "extremely good" medical examination.

In a May 31 Truth Social post, Trump wrote:

"The results of my Physical Examination, taken at Walter Reed Military Medical Center, and just released, were extremely good. Unlike other U.S. Presidents, none of whom have ever taken an approved, high difficulty, Cognitive Test, I scored a perfect 30 out of 30, considered ‘extreme intelligence.’ Are the Dumocrats really surprised? In fact, this is my fourth such test, all PERFECT or, 120 correct answers out of 120 questions asked! It is very rare that anyone gets a Perfect Score, especially when achieved four times in a row. All people running for President and Vice President should be forced to take high difficulty Cognitive Tests. Congress, and the Dumocrats, should demand it! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

We’ll have to take Trump’s word for it that he scored a 30 out of 30 on the test, which medical experts believe — based on Trump’s own descriptions — is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. (When we asked the White House whether that was the test Trump took, a spokesperson did not dispute it.) Trump reportedly also took the test in 2018 and twice in 2025.

But medical experts said Trump inaccurately described the test as measuring intelligence. Instead, it aims to detect signs of cognitive impairment; if the score is low enough, then further testing is recommended.

"The test measures cognition," including attention, concentration, language, memory, abstract thinking and calculation skills, said Ziad Nasreddine, a Quebec-based neurologist who created the 10-minute Montreal Cognitive Assessment in 2005. "Cognitive function is correlated with IQ. But the test was not designed to detect the genius level of cognitive performance. It's meant to reassure that cognitive functions are normal."

Patients might have to read a list of words and recall them; repeat a list of numbers forward and backward; subtract a one-digit number repeatedly starting from 100; repeat a sentence; draw comparisons between two objects; and know the time of day and their location.

Trump garnered attention in 2020 when he told Fox News, "It's like you'll go: Person, woman, man, camera, TV. So they say, ‘Could you repeat that?' So I said, ‘Yeah. So it's person, woman, man, camera, TV.’ ‘Okay, that's very good. If you get it in order, you get extra points.’" (Nasreddine has said that the test has never included that series of words, nor another example Trump has cited involving a giraffe, tiger and whale.)

Scores from 26 to 30 are considered normal. Scores below 26 are considered to reflect some form of cognitive impairment, with the degree of impairment increasing as the score drops.

This is not the first time Trump has boasted about having high scores on the test. He mentioned it in several speeches and interviews earlier this year. In December 2025, after he said he took the test for the third time, Trump posted, "I have been told that few people have been able to ‘ace’ this Examination and, in fact, most do very poorly, which is why many other Presidents have decided not to take it at all."

Neither Nasreddine nor Ishani Ganguli, a Harvard Medical School associate professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said they would describe the test as "high difficulty," as Trump did. 

"A 30/30 score would suggest normal cognitive function, meaning no evidence of cognitive impairment or dementia," Ganguli said. 

Neither expert offered specific data on whether a 30 out of 30 is "very rare," but from their own experience, the frequency of a 30-point score is somewhere between "relatively uncommon," as Nasreddine estimated, and "somewhat common," as Ganguli said.

"It has to be sufficiently hard to detect early-stage cognitive disorders, and not too hard to decrease the risk of false positives," Nasreddine said.

Our ruling

Trump said his cognitive test results showed he has "extreme intelligence."

Medical experts have said Trump is describing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which is designed to detect cognitive impairment, not intelligence. A 30 out of 30 score shows that a patient has normal cognitive function, not high intelligence.

We rate the statement False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

A video shows a worker going up to the facade of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, which now also bears the name of President Donald J. Trump. The worker removes the "J." 

Onlookers below cheer and applaud. Then, the rest of Trump’s name comes down.

That May 31 video gained more than 725,000 views on X, and it was shared on other social media platforms. "Trump's name permanently ripped off the Kennedy Center - is the ultimate humiliation of @realDonaldTrump," the X caption read.

The video does not show a real event; it was generated with artificial intelligence.

On May 29, a federal judge ordered the removal of Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center facade. The judge gave the Kennedy Center two weeks to remove Trump’s name from the center’s branding, but the center said it would appeal. On the same day as the judge’s ruling, Trump said in a Truth Social post that he will work with Congress to transfer the facility "back to them."

The Associated Press distributed photos dated June 1 showing the building still bears Trump’s name.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is seen, June 1, 2026, in Washington. (AP)

The fake video was initially uploaded by TikTok and Instagram user @cabracabaret, who labeled the video as AI-generated.

Some frames from the video showed signs of AI, including missing letters from "Kennedy" and "Center," and what appeared to be a misspelled version of "Donald."

Social media users shared another video and multiple images generated with AI depicting workers taking down Trump’s name.

But there is no real video showing workers removing the president’s name from the Kennedy Center. We rate this claim False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

A new ad by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed his Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate race, James Talarico, said the U.S. southern border should be wide open. 

The ad, which Paxton posted on X a day after he won the Republican Senate primary, included a narrator describing some things as "this is Texas" and others as "this is not," and juxtaposing scenes of people and places with Talarico quotes.

In the ad, Talarico is shown saying, "Our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front." (Text on the ad said: "‘A welcome mat,’ not a border wall.")

Talarico did say this, but the ad left out what he said next.

His full remarks during the Jan. 24 Texas Senate Democratic primary debate, were: 

"So what I’ve said is that our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front, and a lock on the door. 

"We can welcome immigrants who want to live the American dream. We can build a pathway to citizenship for those neighbors who have been here, making us richer and stronger, and we can keep out people who mean to do us harm."

Talarico has said variations of this in other interviews, and the quote has been shared out of context multiple times in the past, including in political groups’ and politicians' social media posts and at least one other pro-Paxton ad.

We contacted Paxton’s campaign but received no response.

Our ruling

A Paxton ad says Talarico said the southern border should have "a giant welcome mat out front."

Talarico compared the southern border with a front porch with a welcome mat. But the ad omitted Talarico’s comments that followed, when he said there should be "a lock on the door" and "we can keep out people who mean to do us harm."

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. 

PolitiFact Senior Digital Research Analyst Jeff Cercone contributed to this report.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

After clinching the Republican Senate nomination on May 26, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton targeted his Democratic opponent, saying James Talarico is too extreme for Texas. 

Paxton said Talarico is a vegan and a threat to the state famous for cattle, Tex-Mex and barbecue. Paxton called his opponent "the most extreme radical the Democrats have ever nominated." 

"He’s a vegan who thinks God is nonbinary and that there’s actually six biological sexes," Paxton said, also calling him "Tofu Talarico." 

President Donald Trump made a similar statement May 20, saying, "He’s a vegan. He’s a vegan in Texas, and you can’t get elected as a vegan in Texas." 

The attack is part of a broad Republican effort to portray Talarico as holding far-left social views and being out of step with Texas voters.

But the public evidence doesn’t back up the vegan claim. Talarico has denied being a vegan multiple times and has been recently pictured eating meat and other animal products during campaign events. 

"James is not and never has been a vegan or vegetarian," campaign spokesperson JT Ennis said in an email to PolitiFact. 

We asked Paxton’s campaign for information to support the claim that Talarico is a vegan, but we did not receive a response. 

Is Talarico a vegan?  

Vegans abstain from eating any animal products, including meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, eggs and honey. Vegans also often avoid using nonfood animal products, such as wool and leather. Veganism is generally motivated by animal welfare concerns, while some people follow vegan diets for health reasons. 

Talarico’s critics point to a 2022 speech during a fundraiser for the Texas Humane Legislation Network, a group that lobbies for humane animal treatment. At the time, Talarico was running for reelection to the Texas House of Representatives. 

During the speech, Talarico said reducing meat consumption is the "moral thing to do" and "necessary to fight climate change." 

"I am proud to say that our campaign has officially become a non-meat campaign, so we are only buying vegan products from our local vegan businesses," he said, adding, "Everyone has to take personal responsibility in this effort." 

Talarico didn’t say in the clip he is a vegan. 

More recently, Talarico has denied that he’s a vegan. In a March social media post, Talarico spokesperson JT Ennis posted a photo of Talarico biting into a turkey leg at the Texas State Fair as the campaign’s "official statement" on "vegan accusations." 

"I want to say this definitively, and categorically, that I deny all accusations of veganism," Talarico said in a March interview with The Bulwark’s Tim Miller. 

In a May 26 interview with the liberal group MeidasTouch, Talarico said he has "been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton’s first indictment." 

Paxton was indicted once, by a state grand jury in 2015 on charges of securities fraud. He reached a 2024 agreement in which he admitted no wrongdoing, requiring him to pay $300,000 in restitution. In 2023, the Republican-led Texas House of Representatives impeached him on allegations of bribery and abuse of office. The Republican-led Senate acquitted him in a subsequent trial.   

In a May video, Talarico — joined by former President Barack Obama and Texas gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa — ordered breakfast tacos with eggs, potatoes and cheese at Taco Joint in Austin. In a 2025 appearance on the Taco Policy podcast, Talarico said he ordered bacon and egg tacos and the combination is what fuels him on the campaign trail.

Another campaign video taken at San Antonio’s Fiesta restaurant and posted April 26 on X shows Talarico sampling chicken and steak. 

Our ruling

Paxton said Talarico "is a vegan." 

Talarico has been recently photographed eating meat and other animal products, showing that he is not a vegan. He also has denied being a vegan.

Talarico advocated in 2022 for reduced meat consumption to address climate change and said he was running a "non-meat campaign," but he did not say he was a vegan. 

We rate the claim False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

In a Spanish video message to the people of Cuba, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he wanted to share "the truth" about their suffering and what the U.S. government could do to help.

"The reason you are forced to survive 22 hours a day without electricity is not due to an oil ‘blockade’ by the U.S.," Rubio said in a video posted on X on May 20 — Cuba’s Independence Day and also the day the U.S. charged former Cuban president Raúl Castro in the 1996 Brothers to the Rescue plane shootdown. 

"As you know, better than anyone, you have been suffering from blackouts for years," he said. "The real reason you don’t have electricity, fuel or food is because those who control your country have plundered billions of dollars, but nothing has been used to help the people."

Since the U.S. government’s January capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. has ended oil shipments from Venezuela to Cuba, previously the island's main supplier. Cuba mainly relies on oil products for energy. President Donald Trump has threatened other countries with tariffs and sanctions if they sell fuel to Cuba, effectively blocking all oil imports into the country.

Cuba’s economic and energy crises are decades in the making, with the government’s centralized control and longstanding mismanagement making rolling blackouts common.

However, Cuban historians and foreign policy experts said the U.S. is playing a role in the current crisis and its embargo is exacerbating an already fraught situation.

"The length of the blackouts has gotten worse since the oil embargo was in place, so that is clearly, unquestionably, a major part of the problem," said William LeoGrande, an American University specialist in Latin American politics. "To claim blackouts are solely the (Cuban) government's fault is simply disingenuous."

The State Department pointed PolitiFact to Rubio’s May 21 statement that said Cuba had "major blackouts last year, and they were still getting free Venezuelan oil. They haven't spent a penny in fixing their energy production, their electrical grid. They don't spend any money on that stuff. They pocket it." 

Neglected electrical grid a key factor for blackouts

Cuba’s blackouts largely started in the early 1990s when the country lost support from the Soviet Union after its collapse, said Theodore Henken, a Baruch College sociologist and anthropologist who studies Cuba. 

Blackouts became less frequent in the early and mid-2000s when then-Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez began subsidizing oil shipments to Cuba. As Venezuela’s economy worsened in the 2010s, the country reduced its oil shipments to Cuba. By 2023, the shipments could not fully power the Cuban grid. 

Lillian Guerra, a University of Florida Cuban and Caribbean history professor who’s experienced several blackouts when visiting the country, said in 2025 blackouts started happening more frequently and lasting longer.

The power outages have increased in frequency and duration since the embargo began. For example, the country had three nationwide blackouts in March and since February, has had at least 28 days of blackouts lasting 24 hours, El País reported May 22.

Experts said Cuba’s blackouts are primarily caused by a collapsed electric grid that needs upgrades and repairs.

"So, while the U.S. oil blockade certainly aggravated this situation, it did not create it," Henken said. Cuba’s government in recent years prioritized building hotels, he said, which has "starved the country of funds for basic maintenance."

The country’s electric grid requires 110,000 barrels of oil a day and can produce 40,000 per day, El País reported. 

On May 13, the Cuban government said it was out of oil and diesel.

Cuba's government relied on the oil shipments from Venezuela and didn't provide for alternatives, Bert Hoffmann, a Latin America expert at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, told PolitiFact. Hoffman said the country only began to seriously install solar capacity three years ago.

Has the U.S. oil embargo contributed to the crisis?

Experts say the U.S.’ actions helped push Cuba’s fragile system over the edge.

"While there have been frequent blackouts in the past, they now are on a very different scale," Hoffmann said. They generally weren’t for 22 hours a day, he said.

"The blackouts have gotten much worse since January," said LeoGrande, from American University. "Cuban officials have said that they are searching for someone to sell them oil but no one will because of the threat of U.S. sanctions."

After the U.S. choked off the Venezuelan-Cuba oil supply line in early January, Trump issued a Jan. 29 executive order that threatened tariffs on any nation that directly or indirectly supplied oil to Cuba. That forced Mexico, Cuba’s other major oil supplier, to halt shipments to the island.

Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum has repeatedly said she would supply Cuba with oil as humanitarian aid, but can’t because of the U.S.’ serious economic threats, Hoffman said. 

By the end of January, Cuba’s oil imports fell to zero for the first time since 2015. The U.S. has so far allowed only one oil vessel — the Russian Anatoly Kolodkin in late March — to reach Cuba.

Since the embargo, Cuba’s power supply has entered an "unprecedented state," El País reported. Trump issued another executive order May 1 authorizing sanctions on any foreign company or person who provides financial, material or technological support to the Cuban government, affecting nearly all sectors of Cuba’s economy. United Nations human rights experts have characterized this move as "energy starvation." 

Cuba’s humanitarian crisis and electric grid failures have worsened since the U.S. blockade, with food shortages, hospitals postponing or canceling surgeries, and schools and businesses forced to close.

Our ruling

Rubio said, "The reason (people in Cuba) are forced to survive 22 hours a day without electricity is not due to an oil ‘blockade’ by the U.S."

Experts say the Cuban government mismanaged the country’s electric system and failed to invest in infrastructure or diversify its energy sources. 

But the U.S. government’s oil embargo, along with its threats of tariffs and sanctions to any country that sends fuel or does business with Cuba, has exacerbated the problem.

Rubio says the Cuban government is to blame, but both governments are contributing to the problem. We rate his statement Half True. 

RELATED: Raúl Castro indictment: Who were Brothers to the Rescue? What happened in 1996?

RELATED: Obama’s baseball game with Raúl Castro hot topic as Trump supporters compare Cuba policies

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

After the Supreme Court struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs in February, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., cosponsored legislation seeking to directly compensate Americans for the tariffs’ costs. Refunds are currently being given to the U.S. businesses that paid them, not to consumers directly.

Gillibrand was one of eight co-sponsors of the Tariff Refunds for Working Families Act (S.4093), which would provide tax rebates using funds collected from tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Individual recipients would receive rebates of $600; joint filers would receive $1,200. The measure would provide an extra $600 per child. (The bill has eight Democratic cosponsors but has not advanced.)

In a March 19 press release, Gillibrand said, "President Trump’s tariffs are costing New York households an estimated $4,200 annually." Gillibrand credited the figure to a November report from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office. Her office pointed PolitiFact New York to that report.

How well supported is that $4,200 figure? Analyses show it’s outdated.

The $4,200 figure comes from outdated governor’s office report

Gillibrand’s press release referenced a governor’s office report; that report traced the $4,200 figure to another report from Hochul’s office. It referred to calculations from the New York State Division of the Budget that put the "new effective tariff rate" at 21% on imported goods, or $4,200 more per New York household.

That figure appeared in an Aug. 7 press release by Hochul’s office that said the July 30 tariffs would cost consumers nearly $33 billion in additional import taxes to continue buying the same amount of foreign goods. "This is nearly $4,200 in additional federal taxes per household in New York," it said.

Hochul’s office told PolitiFact New York the budget department’s analysis focused only on New York state. New York’s median income ranks 16th among states, so back-of-the-envelope calculations put the per-household burden in New York somewhat higher than these national averages.

A bigger issue, though, is timing. In a statement, Hochul’s office said the data had not been updated since August. That’s a big omission in Gillibrand’s statement, experts said.

Other estimates of the tariffs’ cost per household 

In May 2025, we rated Mostly True Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.’s statement that the tariffs meant American families would pay about $4,000 more a year. This is what we found:

• Yale Budget Lab. Yale University’s nonpartisan Budget Lab’s estimate in 2025 showed an average loss per household of $4,900. The lab also offered a more limited calculation that accounted for changes in consumer behavior because of tariffs without factoring those in as losses; that worked out to an estimated $2,600 cost per family.

• Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress, a liberal group, estimated an average loss of $4,600 annually.  

• American Action Forum. The American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, estimated a roughly $3,900 loss per household.

• Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated that the average household loss would be $3,100.

• Tax Foundation. The center-right Tax Foundation put the average loss lower than the other four: $1,243.

But subsequent analyses have shown more modest financial impacts, partly because Trump has lowered tariffs on China. So Gillibrand’s $4,200 estimate is no longer within that range.

In February, about a month before Gillibrand’s statement, we found lower estimates::

• Tax Foundation. The group estimated that, in 2025, Trump tariffs contributed to an average tax increase of $1,000 per household, with a projected $700 hit for 2026.

• Yale Budget Lab. The group estimated in November and January an average income loss of about $1,700, based on consumer prices. Using another measure based on spending relative to a household’s income, the group estimated the median cost at $1,400 per household.

• National Taxpayers Union. This center-right advocacy organization estimated in August 2025 that Trump’s tariffs could cost households an average of $2,048 each year.

Derek Scissors, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute specializing in trade policy, said Gillibrand’s $4,200 was too high, especially given the most recent data.

"There’s no way I can make calculations that get to $4,200 per family," he told PolitiFact New York.

Scissors said tariff impacts varied throughout 2025 as policies shifted and some tariffs were reduced. He said household costs might reach around $2,500 during peak tariff periods but warned against assuming these effects are permanent.

"You can cherry pick the time period to get to $2,500, but that can’t be confidently projected forward because it’s a peak tariff result, and tariffs are lower, for now," he said. 

Our ruling

Gillibrand said, "President Trump’s tariffs are costing New York households an estimated $4,200 annually."

That was at the higher end of estimates in the months immediately after Trump imposed the tariffs in mid-2025. More recent estimates for 2025 are significantly lower, ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 because of tariff changes.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores other information that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

CORRECTION, May 21, 2026: This fact-check has been updated to reflect Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's response to PolitiFact.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}

The Trump administration said it is settling a presidential lawsuit over leaked tax data by establishing a $1.776 billion fund to pay people who say they were victims of judicial "weaponization" under President Joe Biden. 

Democratic critics reacted swiftly. 

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., called the fund "blatant corruption" and a "cash grab." Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said it is "an insane level of corruption — even for Trump." Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., posted on X, "If Trump follows through, it will be the most brazen theft of taxpayer dollars by any president in history."

Democrats said the money might be used to pay people who rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, all of whom President Donald Trump pardoned as one of the first acts of his second term.

Trump administration officials did not rule that out.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers May 19 he could not promise to bar compensation for Jan. 6, 2021, rioters, Trump campaign donors or Republican lawmakers whose phone records were seized by then-Special Counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump between his two presidential terms.

Trump weighed in May 18: "This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated. It's anti-weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed."

He continued, "There's been numerous other occasions over the years where things like this have been done."

The federal government often reaches settlements with plaintiffs, and occasionally with large classes of people. Under law, an existing federal judgment fund can be used to pay billions of dollars annually in settlements for "actual or imminent litigation against the government" or settlements by agencies at the administrative level, not involving a lawsuit.

But the Justice Department, in announcing the new settlement fund, pointed to one particular case.

In a May 18 press release, the Justice Department cited a 2011 settlement for the case Keepseagle v. Vilsack as "legal precedent" for the new fund. That case involved lawsuits by Native American farmers who alleged discrimination in federal assistance by government agencies.

We found broad consensus among legal experts that the new fund differs from the Keepseagle fund in four important ways. 

"Never in the history of the republic has an acting president leveraged his private litigation, against his own administration no less, to develop what, in effect, is a public benefit program tailor-made for his political supporters and allies," said Adam Zimmerman, a University of Southern California law professor who is an expert on presidential settlements.

Police officers who served at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed suit May 20 to block the new settlement fund.

When contacted for comment, the White House referred PolitiFact to the Justice Department, which did not respond to our inquiry.

Differing standards for qualifying for compensation

The Keepseagle settlement established specific requirements for people to receive payouts from the fund. Recipients had to be Native American and have farmed or ranched, or attempted to farm or ranch, from 1981 to1999. They had to have sought a loan or loan servicing from the U.S. Agriculture Department during that period. And they had to have filed a complaint at the time they were denied a loan or otherwise treated unfavorably.

By comparison, the standard for compensation from the new fund is vague. The document establishing the fund says potential recipients must "assert at least one legal claim stating that the claimant was a victim of lawfare and/or weaponization." It does not define the terms "lawfare" or "weaponization."

Gregory Sisk, a University of St. Thomas law professor, called these parameters an "amorphous plan" to pay unidentified people.

The judicial branch’s role

A federal judge approved the Keepseagle settlement, and it had to meet ongoing judicial approval. An appeals court upheld the agreement; the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

Experts said the Keepseagle settlement’s distribution of excess funds to nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers and ranchers was unusual, but the 2011 settlement that received judicial approval included that possibility. 

In his May 19 congressional testimony, Blanche said five appointees who will oversee the new fund will act independently. But the fund description included no judicial role at any stage. Once Trump’s lawyers dropped their IRS leak lawsuit, any possibility for judicial oversight vanished.

The five-member panel appointed by the attorney general will decide on payouts, with one of the members chosen "in consultation with congressional leadership." The president "can remove any member without cause," the fund outline says, and the president also can fire the attorney general at will, as Trump has already done in his second term.

Such a structure, Sisk said, creates a high risk "that it will be paid to allies of the Trump administration as an ongoing political fund."

The size of the new fund is much bigger than Keepseagle's

The Keepseagle settlement had a $760 million value. Of that, $380 million was left undisbursed to individuals and went to nonprofits. In today’s dollars, the $760 million would be $1.15 billion. The settlement considered 4,300 claims, of which more than 3,600 were accepted.

The new $1.776 billion fund is larger, and the group of potential recipients might be smaller. 

The new fund is more than twice as large as Keepseagle’s fund in nominal dollars, and 50% larger in inflation-adjusted dollars. The number of pardoned Jan. 6, 2021, rioters is around 1,600. Even if they’re all included, plus additional claimants in unrelated cases, the total would still likely be smaller than the number of Keepseagle beneficiaries.

"This is a huge payout for a claim by a small number of individuals," Sisk said.

The funds were created through different processes

The Keepseagle settlement fund and the lawsuit that prompted it addressed the same issue. The people who could claim compensation from the Keepseagle fund were plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, which is standard for how such settlements are created, said Tax Law Center Policy Director Brandon DeBot. 

The new settlement fund, however, did not involve a class of plaintiffs, and the suit that led to the new settlement involved leaks of Trump family tax documents. "The fund, and the issues it purports to redress, have nothing to do with the originating lawsuit and leaked information at the IRS," said Cheryl Bader, a Fordham University law professor.

The plaintiffs in the IRS leak case "were the president, his family, and one of their businesses," DeBot said, and they are specifically barred from receiving monetary payment or damages from the fund.

Our ruling

Trump said, "There's been numerous other occasions over the years" when the federal government created a reserve similar to a new, $1.776 billion anti-weaponization settlement fund.

The Justice Department cited a single settlement in a lawsuit filed by Native American farmers as legal precedent for the new fund, but the two differ in at least four fundamental ways.

The earlier case had more specific compensation standards; significant judicial oversight; a smaller dollar amount for a potentially bigger group of beneficiaries; and a more standard process for creating it.

We rate the statement False.

_{-- Delivered by RssEverything service}