In talking about trade and tariffs, Trump pulled out one of his favorite lines, telling the audience, “Billions of dollars right now are pouring into our Treasury.”
Facts First: Technically this is true. It’s just that the billions of dollars aren’t coming from foreign countries and companies, as Trump has suggested in the past. Instead, it’s American companies and consumers that are paying most of the cost of these tariffs.
We fact checked a similar statement from Trump during his speech in El Paso last month. Here’s what we found :
When Trump talks about tariffs, he often talks about the amount of money that is now pouring into the US Treasury. He tends to give the impression that money is being paid by foreign companies. But that’s not really what’s happening. Instead, most of those tariffs are being paid by US companies that import those foreign goods.
The real question is who bears the cost. Often, US companies will pass it on to the consumer by raising prices, while other times a company will reduce compensation or employment internally to offset these higher costs. In some instances, the Chinese supplier might take on the burden of the tariff by reducing its prices in order to maintain its price advantage in the US.
Trump is trying to realign trade so that US products become more competitive with their cheaper Chinese alternatives. That will likely require a long-term adjustment of the US industrial base. In the short term, US consumers and companies will most likely end up bearing the cost of the tariffs. The Tax Foundation said last year that it expects the tariffs to lower the gross domestic product and wages, and cost American jobs, hitting lower- and middle-income households the hardest.
Trump also went after the Russia probe, claiming that “13 Democrats” work on Robert Mueller’s team.
Facts First: According to several reports, 13 members of Mueller’s team have registered as Democrats in the past. The majority of them though have been longstanding Department of Justice employees.
As CNN has previously reported :
Mueller assembled a team that at its peak consisted of at least 17 lawyers and “dozens” of FBI agents to help with his investigation. Nine of the lawyers donated to Democratic candidates before 2017, according to federal records. Eight of those lawyers gave only to Democrats, while one has donated to Democrats and Republicans before.
It’s worth noting that making political donations is within the rules and is not itself a disqualification, as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who appointed Mueller as special counsel) told Congress in 2017.
Asked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham whether political donations should prevent attorneys from working on the investigation, Rosenstein replied, “No, senator, it is not a disqualification. It is not.”
The Washington Post has reported that “13 of the 17 members of Mueller’s team have previously registered as Democrats.”
Mueller was a registered Republican as recently as 2017 and was appointed as FBI director under George W. Bush. Rosenstein is also a registered Republican.
Trump also claimed that one of the lawyers on Mueller’s team has been “involved with the Hillary Clinton Foundation, running it.”
Facts First: This is false. No one on Mueller’s team ever ran the Clinton Foundation.
Trump may be referring to one of Mueller’s lawyers, Jeannie Rhee, who previously represented the Clinton Foundation in a civil racketeering lawsuit that was eventually dismissed .
Trump claimed that he brought back “600,000 beautiful manufacturing jobs that were never going to come back to our country.”
Facts First: While the pace of manufacturing job creation has increased since Trump took office in 2017, he is overstating the number by nearly 150,000. It’s also unclear how much credit any president deserves for the decisions made by manufacturing companies to hire more workers.
Based on current data, 454,000 manufacturing jobs were added since the beginning of 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
We’ve also fact checked the idea that manufacturing jobs were not increasing before Trump took office, something he has suggested before:
By the time former President Barack Obama left office, there were some 190,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than existed at the start of his administration. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The US was in a deep recession when Obama entered the White House in January 2009, and the manufacturing sector was shedding tens of thousands of jobs a month. But the losses stopped by early 2010. Over the next six-plus years, manufacturing jobs rose by more than 800,000.
Under Trump, the pace of growth is certainly faster. During his first two years in office, the economy has added more than 470,000 manufacturing jobs. (According to MarketWatch , the manufacturing job growth from August 2017 to August 2018 was “the best 12-month stretch in 23 years.”)
The reason for this result is likely multifaceted. Oil prices dropping, healthy job numbers nationwide, and deregulation are all often cited reasons for the uptick. However, the decline in vehicle sales paired with uncertainty around trade might harm these numbers.
Also, while the number of manufacturing jobs continues to increase, the total is stil below its pre-recession level.
Trump repeated the claim that “more people are working today in the United States than ever before in our country.”
Facts First: This is true but needs context.
In a way, this is the equivalent of Trump taking credit for a growing population. The more relevant statistic is the percentage of people who are participating in the labor force. That number, which is up recently, still remains below pre-recession levels.
Here’s what we found when Trump made the same claim during his State of the Union address:
According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total number of people employed in the US stands at 156,694,000. That works out to an employment-population ratio of 60.7 percent, according to data from the Federal Reserve, which is below the 64.7 percent ratio from April 2000. That figure from 2000 is the highest-ratio since 1948, when the Fed began mapping the data.
The President repeated the claim that one in three women are assaulted on the journey to the US southern border.
Facts First: This appears to be somewhat true though there are reasons to be skeptical of the data it’s based on.
Trump made a similar claim during a speech on immigration in January. “One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims by far of our broken system,” he said. “This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border.”
Here’s what we found at the time :
Indeed, the trek to the US-Mexico border has been reported to be violent. According to data from Doctors Without Borders, 68.3% of migrants and refugees “entering Mexico reported being victims of violence during their transit toward the United States,” and nearly one-third of women said they’d been sexually abused. But this very violence is also why women have chosen to travel in caravans.
This data from Doctors Without Borders, however, is measuring a small group of migrant women and more data is needed to accurately assess the number of women that are assaulted, physically or sexually.
Touting the decrease in food stamp recipients, more manufacturing jobs and other successes, Trump said that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 the stock market would have gone down 50%, claiming that it “was heading down” before he took office. Was it really going down?
Facts First: No.
CNN Business reported at the end of 2016 that the ” Dow closed 2016 more than 4,300 points above its January low of 15,451,” finishing out the year with a 13.4% gain.
All three major indexes saw gains in 2016, with the NASDAQ up 7.5% and the S&P 500 gaining 9.5%.
Obama’s tenure saw a near tripling of the S&P 500, mostly due to very low interest rates and recovery from the recession.
Trump’s claim that the stock markets were “heading down” is not correct.
California forest management
Trump also poked fun at California’s canceled bullet train , said he liked Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and claimed that the forest fires in California had been caused, at least in part, by a lack of forest management.
“When I’m with (Newsom) face-to-face, nice guy. When he speaks about me, not so nice, but face-to-face he loves me,” Trump said before suggesting that California needs some “forest money.” “I think they need some forest money because, honestly,” said Trump, “the management of the forest is very bad and that’s one of the problems they have.”
“Gotta clean it up. It’s called management. When a tree falls you can’t let the environmentalists say you can’t take that tree out. Becomes like a matchstick, that tree. It hits a flame, it goes up. The leaves, every once in a while, you have to remove the leaves.”
Facts First: This is claim is more nuanced than Trump’s previous statements on forest management, but it still overstated. He also misses what is involved in “forest management.”
Experts do cite a lack of forest management among a list of reasons some California wildfires have been so large. However, Trump is overemphasizing this factor. The primary reason these fires have been so devastating is windy and extremely dry conditions. And not all of these fires — like the Woolsey Fire — were in forest areas.
Additionally, almost 60% of the forests in California are managed by the federal government, not California’s government. The majority of the remainder is privately owned.
Lastly, forest management is much more complicated than removing dead leaves and fallen branches as Trump claimed. Often it involves tree-thinning and the removal of smaller trees — but there are many different methods of forest management based on the terrain type, among other factors.
Invoking the recent story of the “Covington kids” (where video of high school students approached by Native American activists created a media firestorm) CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp claimed on Saturday that New York and Virginia governors supported post-birth abortions.
“How many of you followed this Covington story?” Schlapp asked the CPAC audience Saturday. “Do you know why they came to the nation’s capital? They came to the nation’s capital to march against what the governor of Virginia and the governor of New York want to see happen, which is literally post-birth abortions.”
Facts First: Recent legislation introduced in Virginia and New York has sought to ease restrictions on certain third-trimester abortions. Much of the current controversy stems from a radio interview Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave, in which he made some odd claims on proposed abortion legislation that created confusion around the bill. But Schlapp’s characterization of the legislation in New York and Virginia is not accurate.
Trump made a similar claim regarding New York and Virginia during his State of the Union address. Here’s what we found in our SOTU fact check :
The Reproductive Health Act , signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January, allows for abortions after 24 weeks if an authorized health care practitioner determines that “the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health” or if “there is an absence of fetal viability.”
New York’s new law expands access to abortions into the third trimester by loosening restrictions on when the procedure is permitted. Previously, an abortion could only be performed after 24 weeks if the physician deemed it necessary to preserve the life of the mother. Under the new law, the requirement has been expanded to include the general health of the mother.
Virginia Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran recently sponsored legislation that would have relaxed certain requirements around third-trimester abortions in the state.
Under current state law , third-trimester abortions can only be performed if three doctors agree the “pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” The failed bill would have reduced the number of physicians needed to approve the abortion to one, and removed “substantially and irremediably” from the language of justification for the abortion.
During a committee hearing on the now defunct bill, Tran was asked “how late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” “Through the third trimester,” Tran responded, clarifying that there was no limit in the proposed bill for when an abortion could be performed prior to the birth.
Northam was asked about Tran’s comments in a Jan. 30 interview with the radio station WTOP. Northam began to explain what he thought occurs in such an instance. His comments sparked confusion and controversy among abortion opponents.
“The infant would be delivered,” Northam said, “the infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Later, a spokesperson for Northam said his “comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances [i.e. nonviable pregnancy and severe fetal abnormalities] went into labor.”
This clarification, however, does not address the statement made by Northam that “the infant would be delivered.”
By the numbers
According to the Guttmacher Institute — an organization focused on sexual and reproductive health — “slightly more than 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later.” From states that report abortion procedures to the CDC, 638,169 abortions were performed in the US during 2015 .
The battle over abortion legislation continues to rage in state capitals around the country. Nothing is expected to come from the currently divided Congress. In February, the US Supreme Court blocked Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act from taking effect. The law would have required a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed.
While discussing the opioid epidemic and illicit drugs, Fox News contributor Sara Carter told CPAC’s audience that in the height of the crisis, places in Ohio ran out of room for bodies in the morgues and had to put some in freezer trailers outside.
“I’ve never seen anything quite like this then when I went to the epicenter in Ohio and other states who are facing this crisis,” said Carter, “where the morgues were so overflowing with bodies that they had to rent freezer trailers to put the children in the freezer trailers outside of the mortuary.”
Facts First: This is true.
Initially, Carter’s claim was met with skepticism online, with some accusing her of overblowing the opioid crisis.
As CNN reported , the state of Ohio purchased several mobile morgues (trucks that have refrigerated trailers) in the mid-2000s. Originally, the trailers were meant to be used for emergency/mass casualty incidents like mass shootings and so forth. Several times in 2015 and 2016 some morgues in Ohio had to use the trailers due to overcrowded morgues, with officials citing overdose deaths as the primary cause of the overflow.
In 2017, Ohio Coroner in Montgomery County Dr. Kent Harshbarger told CNN “overdoses are coming in all the time and we’re constantly full on a day-to-day basis.”
While praising President Donald Trump during his remarks at CPAC, Vice President Mike Pence listed off some of the accomplishments he believes the administration has made in its first two years. Among them, of course, was the 2017 tax reform.
“With the support of this generation of conservatives, President Trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in American history,” the Vice President said. “That’s promises made and promises kept.”
Facts First: The tax cut Trump signed into law in December 2017 was certainly large, but the largest? No.
When it comes to measuring the size of these tax reforms, many studies look at how the federal tax revenue lost from the cut compares as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over time.
An analysis from CNN on this very claim found that Trump’s tax reform comes in at around -1.1% of GDP. By this measurement, the 2017 tax reform is below at least six previous tax cuts passed under presidents including Obama, George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and Reagan.
When looking at the current inflation-adjusted dollar amount the tax reform would cost, it still comes in under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 according to data from the Treasury Department.
No matter how many times the administration makes this claim, it’s still incorrect.
During the second day of CPAC, several speakers made jokes (some more seriously than others) about the Green New Deal, specifically suggesting that Democrats are looking to get rid of cows.
Referencing the Green New Deal resolution, former Deputy Assistant to President Trump Sebastian Gorka claimed that Democrats “‘want to take your pickup truck, they want to rebuild your home, they want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved.” Sen. Ted Cruz, too, made reference to the removal of cows.
“I hope to see PETA supporting the Republican party,” he said, “now that the Democrats want to kill all the cows.” Rep. Mark Meadows joined in on the joke, suggesting that Chick-Fil-A’s stock will increase with Democrats “trying to get rid of all the cows,” citing the Green New Deal.
Facts First: Getting rid of cows was mentioned in a now-removed FAQ on the Green New Deal but is not in the actual resolution.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s team released an FAQ following the Green New Deal resolution. Dealing with the question of why the resolution focused on “100% clean and renewable” energy as opposed to “100% renewable” the FAQ explained that “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
Those 18 words set off a wave of attacks from conservatives and Republicans, quickly becoming a focal point of their criticism of the Green New Deal. (The upcoming cover of the conservative magazine National Review features Ocasio-Cortez surrounded by cattle .)
The FAQ was later renounced by Ocasio-Cortez and her team, with her Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti tweeting that an “early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake.”
Regarding agriculture, the resolution does not mention cows but focuses on “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”
This story is breaking and being updated.
This content was originally published here.