After President Joe Biden took a veiled swipe at him during the State of the Union address, Sen. Rick Scott released an ad labeling Biden a “tax cheat.” Biden was first scrutinized in 2019 for using what one nonpartisan expert described as an “aggressive” but not illegal tactic on his 2017 and 2018 tax returns to avoid paying a Medicare tax.

The White House is employing a new defense of that tax maneuver, one it says the IRS blessed, though some tax experts remain unconvinced.

Scott fired off his “tax cheat” allegation in an ad after Biden jabbed Republicans during the State of the Union, saying, “Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s a majority.”

The line drew catcalls from some Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who shouted “liar.” As we wrote, the president has exaggerated Republican support for a proposal from Scott that said: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” Scott — who was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee —has said his aim is to “fix” but not eliminate the programs.

In a tweet the day after the State of the Union, Scott claimed Biden lied about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare — though Biden only said that “some Republicans” want to sunset the programs, which is what Scott proposed.

“Joe Biden just cut $280 billion from Medicare, and we know about his 80,000 new IRS agents,” Scott says in the ad. “But what you don’t know is that Joe Biden also cheated on his taxes and got away with it. Biden improperly used a loophole to dodge half a million dollars in taxes that should have gone to Medicare. And Now that Biden has ripped off Medicare for half a million dollars, he wants to close the loophole and raise your taxes. … Biden should resign.”

The claims about cutting $280 billion from Medicare and funding “80,000 new IRS agents” are misleading, as we have written repeatedly in previous posts. We’ll explain why later, but we wanted to first address the claim that Biden is a “tax cheat.”

Biden’s S Corporations

The issue of Biden’s taxes was first raised by the Wall Street Journal in July 2019 when Biden was running for president, shortly after Biden released federal and state tax returns for 2016, 2017 and 2018 on his campaign website.

At issue was the amount Joe and Jill Biden claimed as salary in two S corporations — CelticCapri Corp. and Giacoppa Corp. — for their book and speech income after Biden had left the vice presidency. People who set up S corporations still report their flow-through income on their personal tax returns and pay taxes on that income at their individual income tax rate. However, S-corporation owners can avoid paying an additional 3.8% Medicare tax on income designated as profits rather than salary, so long as they pay themselves “reasonable compensation.” The 3.8% Medicare tax is levied on high-income earners as part of the Affordable Care Act.

According to their 2017 and 2018 returns, of the roughly $13.3 million in combined revenue from the S corporations in those years, the Wall Street Journal says less than $800,000 was paid to the Bidens in salary, or less than 6%. As a result, they avoided paying a 3.8% Medicare tax on the vast majority of the S corporation income. They still paid pass-through individual income taxes on the profit and salary amounts.

Whether that amounts to “reasonable compensation” pushes into a bit of a gray area in tax law, Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told us in a phone interview.

“I don’t think that there is any hard and fast rule,” Pomerleau said. “There’s a lot of leeway here,” and plenty of incentive for high-income earners to underestimate their wages relative to profit to lower their tax obligation.

Had all of the S corporation income been recorded as salary, or had the Bidens simply paid the taxes directly — instead of routing book and speech income through S corporations — the Wall Street Journal said they could have owed as much as $500,000 more in Medicare taxes for those years.

In the Wall Street Journal’s 2019 article, Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, called the Bidens’ tactic “pretty aggressive.”

Rosenthal told us he stands by that characterization.

“The Bidens apparently routed their book and speech income through S corporations,” Rosenthal said. “After doing so, they characterized much of this income as profits, and little as compensation. As a result, they avoided the 3.8 percent Medicare tax on their profits. Many view routing income for services through an S corporation as a ‘loophole.'” 

“I, personally, would not route income through an S corporation to save on Medicare taxes, but is it proper? Maybe yes, maybe no,” Rosenthal said. “The question is whether the amount allocated to compensation was ‘reasonable,’ which is a pretty loose standard. Was it illegal? No, illegal requires more extreme conduct, like the Trump Organization’s knowing violations of the tax law, which resulted in its criminal conviction for helping top executives evade taxes, including Medicare taxes.” (In 2016, Rosenthal wrote about how Trump also may have taken advantage of the S corporation rules to avoid paying Medicare payroll tax on a substantial amount of his income — the same type of accusation facing Biden.)

“Labelling tax positions is hard, as there is a wide range of aggressiveness (from lawfully exploiting a loophole to criminal fraud),” said Rosenthal, who co-wrote a blog post in January about the ambiguous terms used to describe ways to avoid or evade taxes. “I would not describe Biden as a tax cheat or a tax dodge. Biden reported his position clearly on his tax returns, which he released to the public. So, Biden did not hide anything which, to me, is important.”

“I would call this more tax avoidance than tax evasion, which is what Scott implies,” Pomerleau of AEI told us.

Biden Tried to Close ‘Loophole’

However one may characterize the Bidens’ tactic, it is worth noting, as the Wall Street Journal did, that the Obama administration tried, unsuccessfully, to close this tax “loophole.”

The technique of setting up S corporations to avoid paying payroll taxes became known as the “Gingrich/Edwards” tax loophole, as it was employed by Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and GOP presidential contender, and John Edwards before he became a senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee. President Barack Obama called for closing the so-called loophole in his 2015 budget, but it never passed in Congress.

The Biden administration, too, has tried to close it. The initial House-backed version of the Build Back Better plan included Biden’s call to close the so-called S corporation loophole for those with incomes higher than $400,000. But that never made it into the scaled-back legislation that finally passed. And so what might be technically legal might also be deemed by some hypocritical for Biden to use.

Robert Willens, a tax expert and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business, said in an email that what the Bidens did is “a common tactic used by shareholders of ‘S’ corporations to reduce their medicare and payroll tax liabilities. This is done by reporting an unreasonably low amount of compensation for their services rendered to the ‘S’ corporation.”

“The I.R.S. has had great success in challenging taxpayers who employed this strategy and, to my knowledge, has never lost a case in which it was asserted that the compensation was unreasonably low,” Willens told us. “Wouldn’t you think that a business that earned approximately $10 million, in which capital was not a material income-producing factor, and in which the personal services provided by the shareholders accounts for the corporation’s success, should compensate its shareholder/employees more generously than the President’s ‘S’ corporation did? What is reasonable compensation in a case like this one is a question of fact [for the IRS or perhaps a judge or jury to decide] but it seems to be substantially higher than … the amount reported as such by President Biden.

“I wouldn’t label him a ‘tax cheat,'” Willens said. “He was simply employing a commonly used strategy and may not have even been aware of the benefits he could obtain by understating his compensation. This is just a normal, commonly employed, tax planning technique. He may have thought, in good faith, that the compensation he reported was reasonable.”

Nevertheless, back in 2019, the Biden campaign defended the tax returns, telling the Wall Street Journal: “The salaries earned by the Bidens are reasonable and were determined in good faith, considering the nature of the entities and the services they performed.”

New White House Defense

Now, however, the Biden administration is making a different argument. A White House official told FactCheck.org that during an audit of the Bidens’ 2021 tax return, “the IRS did review the S corporation income, including whether the 3.8% Medicare tax should apply. And the IRS conclusively agreed it did not apply.” (The tax returns of all presidents are supposed to be audited by the IRS while they are in office, although that did not happen in Trump’s first two years.)

“The President and First Lady fully and accurately reported their 2017 and 2018 taxes and the IRS never challenged those tax years,” the White House official said.

“Notably, this has nothing to do with the ‘S corporation loophole,'” the White House official said. “During the recent audit of the President and First Lady’s 2021 taxes, the IRS agreed that the President and First Lady’s royalty income would never be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax, whether earned inside or outside of an S corporation, because an older federal regulation controls. Under Treas. Reg. § 1.469-2T, because the royalty income stems from the licensing of their own creative works, it’s always … characterized as non-passive income derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business. That means it should never be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax.”

The official said royalties made up “the lion’s share of income in 2017 and 2018 and it represents all S Corp income during the presidency.”

The ‘S corporation loophole’ has never applied to the Bidens, the official said, “since they’re licensing their own creative works.”

Rosenthal and Willens aren’t buying the argument.

Rosenthal said the White House’s argument might make sense in 2021, when “Biden presumably devoted all his attention to the Presidency.” Because of that, Rosenthal said, “Biden could reasonably argue that the distributions from his S corporation” in 2021 — about $62,000 — “were not subject to self-employment taxes.” In that year, he said, Biden could argue that he received royalties and other income from his S corporation “effectively as an investor, not as an author.”

“They can’t take that argument back to 2017 and 2018,” Rosenthal said.

In 2017 and 2018, after Biden left the vice presidency, he was essentially in the business of writing books and making speeches, Rosenthal said.

Willens also disputed the White House argument, saying that while it is sometimes the case that “royalties constitute portfolio income, rather than passive income,” that’s not the case with the Bidens as “the royalties are derived in the ordinary course of licensing such property. Royalties are presumed to be so derived if the person receiving such royalties ‘created the property.'”

The question, Rosenthal said, is why, when it was doing the 2021 audit, didn’t the IRS go back to 2017 and 2018 and require the Bidens to make an adjustment.

White House spokesman Andrew Bates said the IRS did consider the 2017 and 2018 filings, though it did not formally audit those returns.

“During the first routine audit of this administration, tax years 2017 and 2018 were discussed with the IRS, who examined the finances of the s-corporations going back to their inception in 2017,” Bates said. “They challenged nothing.”

Rosenthal would like to know why, and he said that if he were the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he would seek IRS records related to discussions of the 2017 and 2018 returns and the S corporations to find out why the IRS didn’t think an upward adjustment was warranted.

But it is probably too late for the IRS to try to recoup any money. The IRS typically has three years to go after someone’s back taxes. Given that the Bidens amended their 2018 returns in July 2019, the three-year window would have closed last July.

“Yes, it’s too late for the I.R.S. to audit those tax returns since the statute of limitations has long passed,” Willens told us.

Medicare ‘Cuts’ and IRS Agents

As for the other claims in Scott’s ad, this isn’t the first time Scott has said the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats would cut Medicare by $280 billion. But as we have written, that’s misleading. The law seeks to lower prescription drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate some prescription drug prices.

The Medicare provisions would reduce federal deficits by about $300 billion over 10 years. But as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget explains, “While these policies do reduce the cost of Medicare, they do so by lowering prescription drug costs, not by cutting benefits. In fact, we estimate the policies as a whole would improve benefits by lowering premiums and out-of-pocket costs — including through a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs.”

Scott is also wrong about the law including money for 80,000 new IRS “agents.” As we have written, the law does include roughly $79 billion for the IRS over 10 years, but most of the new hires it pays for will replace retiring or departing workers and most new positions would be in customer service, the Treasury Department told us. Some hires would be tax enforcers, but their focus would be auditing high-income earners to make sure they pay the taxes they legally owe the government, administration officials have said.

We should note that while Scott didn’t characterize the new IRS hires as an “army” that could “carry guns” (as Trump once did), the senator’s TV ad shows an IRS agent firing a weapon at a gun range. Only IRS “special agents” in the Criminal Investigation division are law enforcement officers who are authorized to carry guns.

What’s ironic is that immediately after criticizing Biden for hiring new IRS enforcement agents, Scott then criticizes Biden for avoiding some Medicare taxes. Going after high-income taxpayers who underreport salary in S corporations to avoid Medicare taxes is exactly the kind of thing new IRS agents might do.

“The IRS is completely outgunned,” Rosenthal said, referring to the small number of IRS revenue agents confronting a large amount of underreported taxes.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post The Facts on Sen. Scott’s Claim That Biden Is a ‘Tax Cheat’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

A day after several Republicans interrupted President Joe Biden’s second State of the Union address with loud jeering, a Democratic leader said he couldn’t “remember a Democrat ever heckling a president in a State of the Union.” But the Democrats have voiced displeasure with a Republican president at such events on several occasions, dating to at least 2005.

“I don’t remember a Democrat ever heckling a president in a State of the Union or any other matter,” Rep. Jim Clyburn told CNN’s Don Lemon in a Feb. 8 interview. The South Carolina Democrat continued: “We may show disassociation with, unappreciated-ness of. We may do it with a smile or not smile, facial expressions. I’ll sometimes do it with my head … bow my head to pray, and I sometimes shake my head to say I don’t agree. But to heckle, I mean, that’s not the way adults act. You let the president have his say. You show your disapproval, but you don’t heckle.”

Clyburn may not consider it heckling, but there have been times when Democrats did not just disagree with a Republican president in silence. We will leave it to readers to decide how the following examples compare to what some Republican lawmakers did during Biden’s address this year.

2020

One of the most notable interruptions by Democrats came during then-President Donald Trump’s last State of the Union address in 2020, when he talked about wanting to sign legislation to lower the price of prescription drugs.

“I’ve been speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done quickly and properly,” Trump said. “I’m calling for bipartisan legislation that achieves the goal of dramatically lowering prescription drug prices. Get a bill on my desk, and I will sign it into law immediately.”

After Trump finished making his request, several Democrats stood, held up three fingers, and repeatedly chanted “H.R. 3!” — a reference to the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. That bill, named for the late Democratic congressman, passed in the Democratic-controlled House in December 2019 but died in the Republican-led Senate.

Trump raised his voice to drown out the chanting and continue his speech.

In addition, the Hill reported that “a handful of Democrats walked out” during Trump’s 2020 address. One of them, then-Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, tweeted that he’d “had enough” of Trump’s speech, which he called “fake” and compared to professional wrestling.

This was also the year that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught on camera tearing up her copy of Trump’s speech as he was concluding his remarks.

2019

A number of Democrats appeared to lightly boo Trump during his 2019 address as he talked about migrants who were headed for the country’s southern border.

“Large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States,” Trump said.

The Hill reported: “The rhetoric earned him groans from Democrats in the House chamber, who have accused Trump of using the caravans to stir up the Republican base.”

The groaning, which was brief, subsided after Pelosi, who was seated behind Trump, raised her hand as an apparent signal for Democrats to quiet down.

2018

There also was booing in 2018, when Trump talked about wanting to limit an immigration program that allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, or green-card holders, to sponsor family members for permanent U.S. residency.

NBC News reported: “The president’s comments on immigration proved the most controversial, prompting boos and groans from Democrats, many of whom had invited ‘Dreamers,’ the children of undocumented immigrants, to attend the speech as their guests.”

The article noted that “as Trump slammed ‘open borders’ and ‘chain migration,'” then-Rep. Joe Crowley, a high-ranking Democrat, “was heard saying, ‘Oh, come on!’ while others gestured in disgust.”

Insider also reported that “at least one member of Congress shout[ed] ‘that’s not true,’ when the president outlined his proposed cuts to legal immigration.”

2005

In a 2009 blog post about GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s notorious “You lie!” moment during former President Barack Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress, Politico reported: “In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted ‘No!'” when then-President George W. Bush “pushed for Social Security reform” during that year’s speech.

The Politico post included a quote from then-CNN political analyst Bill Schneider, who called the outbursts during Bush’s 2005 speech “unusual.”

“I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying ‘no’ when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security,” Schneider said, according to a CNN transcript of his commentary.

A February 2005 National Journal report also said that “Democrats broke decorum” by booing Bush twice.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post ‘Heckling’ at State of the Union Addresses appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

President Joe Biden announced on Jan. 25 that the U.S. would provide Ukraine with 31 tanks. After the announcement, a meme on social media misquoted Biden’s remarks from March 2022, suggesting he said that sending tanks to Ukraine would cause World War III. Biden said sending weapons “with American pilots and American crews” would cause a world war. 

Full Story

Since the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Ukrainian government has received assistance from numerous countries in the form of economic and military support. In preparation for the next phase of the war, Ukrainian officials have repeatedly lobbied their Western allies for more modernized equipment, including longer-range missile systems and tanks.

Requests for the missiles have been denied, so far, for fears of escalating the war further. The U.S. continually rebuffed Ukraine’s request for tanks because of the training it takes to operate and maintain Abrams tanks. 

In January, after a series of talks among Ukraine, the U.S. and other allies, multiple countries agreed to supply tanks to Ukraine. Those countries who have committed to or expressed willingness to send tanks so far have been the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Poland and the U.S.

Biden announced on Jan. 25 that the U.S. would supply Ukraine with 31 M1 Abrams tanks along with eight M88 recovery vehicles, which are vehicles designed to aid in the operation and recovery of Abrams tanks. The U.S. announcement prompted Germany to give its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine after previously refusing to do so unless the U.S. acted first.

In his Jan. 25 remarks, Biden explained the decision to supply tanks, stating, “They need to be able to counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term. They need to improve their ability to maneuver in open terrain. And they need an enduring capability to deter and defend against Russian aggression over the long term.” 

He also said, “It is not an offensive threat to Russia,” describing the tanks as needed to “defend and protect Ukrainian land.”

The Abrams tanks, procured through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, are expected to take weeks to arrive in Ukraine, in part due to the training of Ukrainian operators.

After Biden made the announcement, a meme was shared on Instagram and Twitter that misleadingly edited a statement by Biden from March 2022, claiming he said: “The idea that we’re going to send tanks to Ukraine, that’s called World War III.”

The bottom half of the meme contained a line from his Jan. 25 comments that the U.S. would now supply tanks to Ukraine.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to the meme on Twitter, writing, “The war is escalating quickly.”

The original tweet received more than 20 million views, and Musk’s response had over 16 million views. 

But the posts misquote Biden’s 2022 statement to the House Democratic Caucus in Philadelphia nearly a year ago (emphasis ours).

Biden, March 11, 2022: But look, the idea — the idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand – and don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say – that’s called “World War Three.” Okay?

The clarifying point in the original quote — but omitted in the meme — is that the addition of American personnel along with offensive equipment to Ukraine could lead to World War III. 

In an email to FactCheck.org on Feb. 9 responding to the social media posts, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department stated, “As President Biden has said, America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.” 

The spokesperson also noted that Biden wrote in an essay in the New York Times on May 31, 2022: “We do not seek war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow. So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

Statista. “Total bilateral aid commitments to Ukraine between January 24 and November 20, 2022, by type and country or organization.” Accessed 13 Feb 2023.

Vergun, David. “Biden Announces Abrams Tanks to be Delivered to Ukraine.” U.S. Department of Defense News. 25 Jan 2023. 

Liebermann, Oren, Haley Britzky and Alex Marquardt. “US set to finalize massive security aid package for Ukraine, including Stryker combat vehicles for the first time.” CNN. 18 Jan 2023. 

Ali, Idrees and Sabine Siebold. “Ramstein summit fails to agree to Leopard tanks deal for Ukraine.” Reuters. 20 Jan 2023.

Cooper, Helene and Eric Schmitt. “U.S. Plans to Send Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, Officials Say.” New York Times. 24 Jan 2023. 

Woody, Christopher and Jake Epstein. “Ukraine is getting a new heavy-duty armored vehicle to haul its damaged tanks off the battlefield, US officials say.” Business Insider. 25 Jan 2023. 

Schmitz, Rob, Charles Maynes and Joanna Kakiss. “Germany agrees to send its Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine after weeks of pressure.” NPR. 25 Jan 2023. 

White House. “Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on U.S. Support to Ukraine.” 25 Jan 2023. 

Musk, Elon. @elonmusk. “The war is escalating quickly.” Twitter. 31 Jan 2023.  

White House. “Remarks by President Biden at the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference.” 11 Mar 2022. 

White House. “Remarks by President Biden on Continued Support for Ukraine.” 25 Jan 2023.

U.S. Department of State spokesperson. Email to Factcheck.org. 9 Feb 2023. 

President Joe Biden. “President Biden: What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” Guest essay. New York Times. 31 May 2022.

The post Posts Misquote Biden’s Year-Old Remarks on Tanks for Ukraine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take  

The IRS has proposed a voluntary program that employers could choose to use in order to manage the taxes owed on employees’ tips. The program would replace similar existing programs. But some partisan social media accounts have wrongly suggested that the program indicates either new taxes or increased enforcement. Neither is true.

Full Story

Service workers’ tips have been taxed by the federal government for decades.

They were first explicitly included in the instructions in 1945 for the form 1040, which specified that filers must include “all ‘tips,’ and any ‘gift’ which is really compensation for services.” And before that, it was tacitly understood that tips were part of net income required to be disclosed since federal income taxes were established by constitutional amendment in 1913.

But some partisan social media accounts have been spreading a rumor suggesting that taxing tips is a new proposal or that the existing taxes will be more aggressively collected. Neither is true.

Some of the most popular posts build upon a previous misleading claim that suggested funding to hire up to 87,000 employees for the dwindling Internal Revenue Service workforce would result in enhanced enforcement for low- and middle-income earners. But Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has specified that the new funding will not be used to increase enforcement on taxpayers earning less than $400,000, and most new positions would be in customer service, as we’ve explained before.

“Those 87,000 new IRS agents that you were promised would only target the rich… They’re coming after waitresses’ tips now,” reads one viral Twitter post that’s been copied and reposted on Instagram and Facebook.

And Andrew Klavan, a commentator for the conservative site The Daily Wire, wrote on Facebook, “IRS Moves To Go After Workers’ Tips As Biden Promises Middle Class Won’t Be Taxed More.”

Similarly, Pamela Geller, an anti-Islamic activist who runs a conservative website, wrote on Facebook, “Biden IRS Plans to Crackdown on Waitress’ Tips As Biden Lies No New Taxes On Working Class In State of the Union.”

But, as we said, tips have always been taxed, and there’s no proposal to introduce a new tax or to beef up enforcement of tax collection on service workers’ tips.

There’s “absolutely nothing new,” Eric Smith, spokesman for the IRS, told us in a phone interview.

All of those claims are based on a Feb. 6 press release from the IRS announcing a public comment period for a proposed update to existing voluntary tip reporting programs for employers outside of the gaming industry. Plans to update those programs began back in 2013.

Right now, employers can opt to participate in one of three programs run by the IRS — the Tip Rate Determination Agreement program, or TRDA; the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment, or TRAC; or a program similar to TRAC that’s designed by the employer, EmTRAC.

The first two programs were introduced in 1993 in order to improve compliance with tax laws about tipping. Under the TRDA, employers work with the IRS to determine a standard tip rate and then 75% of employees must agree to participate, meaning those employees must report tips at or above the standard rate. Under TRAC, employers agree to hold regular education programs with employees about their tax obligations and provide formal tip reporting procedures.

In 2000, the IRS introduced EmTRAC, which is similar to TRAC, but available only to employers in the food and beverage industry whose employees receive both cash and charged tips.

The newly proposed system — called the Service Industry Tip Compliance Agreement, or SITCA — would replace all three. It would use the point-of-sale systems to measure more accurate tipping data, according to the press release.

The proposal is “just a streamlining, essentially, of the whole setup,” Smith said.

The general procedure is that tipped employees are required, and have always been required, to report their tips to their employer and the employer then enters that amount on the employee’s W-2 form, Smith said.

“Of course, not everybody complies,” he said, but the law has always required it.

SITCA is the latest attempt by the IRS to facilitate compliance and, importantly, it would be voluntary, as were the other programs. Comments from the public on the proposed program are due by May 7.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

Internal Revenue Service. 1945 Instructions for Form 1040. Accessed 9 Feb 2023.

National Archives. “16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913).” Updated 13 Sep 2022.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Press release. “Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen Sends Letter to IRS Commissioner in Support of Funding for IRS to Improve Taxpayer Service & Combat Evasion By High Income Earners and Corporations.” 10 Aug 2022.

Jones, Brea. “IRS Will Target ‘High-Income’ Tax Evaders with New Funding, Contrary to Social Media Posts.” FactCheck.org. Corrected 31 Aug 2022.

Smith, Eric. Spokesman, Internal Revenue Service. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 8 Feb 2023.

Internal Revenue Service. Press release. “IRS introduces new service industry tip reporting program.” 6 Feb 2023.

Internal Revenue Service. Service Industry Tip Compliance Agreement Program. Notice 2023-13. Accessed 8 Feb 2023.

Internal Revenue Service. Request for Comments on Voluntary Tip Compliance Agreements. 29 Apr 2013.

Internal Revenue Service. Tips on Tips. Accessed 9 Feb 2023.

Joint Committee on Taxation. “PRESENT LAW AND BACKGROUND RELATING TO THE TAX TREATMENT OF TIP INCOME.” 15 Jul 2004.

The post Partisan Posts Misrepresent IRS’ Voluntary Program Proposal on Tip Income appeared first on FactCheck.org.

SciCheck Digest

Thai officials attributed the collapse of the king’s eldest daughter in December to a bacterial infection, not to COVID-19 vaccination, as some have baselessly claimed online. Rumors about the country banning Pfizer’s vaccines are also “fake news,” officials said.

How safe are the vaccines?

Full Story

Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha, the eldest of the king’s three children and a potential heir to the throne, collapsed on Dec. 14 while training her dogs for a competition. On Jan. 7, a palace statement said the 44-year-old princess fell into a coma due to a severe arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat, caused by heart inflammation following a mycoplasma infection.

Mycoplasma is a kind of bacteria that typically affects the lungs, skin or urinary tract, depending on the species responsible for an infection. Most infections are mild, but some can be severe and even fatal. Mycoplasma pneumoniae, for instance, is a common cause of pneumonia, but in rare cases it can spread to other parts of the body, including the heart. Because these bacteria have no cell walls, like most bacteria do, some antibiotics won’t work against them. 

The Royal Household Bureau has released three statements about Princess Bajrakitiyabha since her collapse. In the most recent one, from more than a month ago, authorities said the princess remained unconscious and that she was receiving antibiotics and heart, lung, and kidney support. 

Despite no mention of COVID-19 vaccination, online articles and social media posts have baselessly claimed that the princess’s condition was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine and that Thai officials were banning Pfizer’s shots.

“Thailand to BAN Pfizer After Thai Princess Falls Into a Coma Following Booster Jab,” reads one Feb. 5 headline from a dubious website.

The claims stem from an interview, widely shared online by anti-vaccine activists, with a retired Thai-German microbiologist named Sucharit Bhakdi. Bhakdi, who has spread misinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccines before, claimed without evidence that the princess collapsed 23 days after a booster. He also said, incorrectly, that a bacterial infection “would never do what she’s suffering from,” and called the diagnosis “so ridiculous.”

Half an hour into the interview, Bhakdi said the vaccine was “deadly” and suggested that Thailand was going to cancel its vaccine contract with Pfizer/BioNTech.

There is no support for these claims. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has been shown to be remarkably safe, both in clinical trials and in subsequent safety surveillance studies. The royal family has not released the princess’s vaccine status, and there’s no evidence that she received a booster before falling into a coma. The claims have also been fact-checked by the Associated Press, Snopes and Lead Stories. 

Thailand’s Department of Disease Control publicly denied the claim about the country no longer offering the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on Feb. 2 in a Facebook post that included a screenshot of Bhakdi’s interview with the warning, “FAKE NEWS DO NOT SHARE!” 

“The Department of Disease Control, the Ministry of Health, has fact checked and found the issue to be false information. The public is requested not to be fooled and ask for cooperation not to send or share such information on various social media channels,” the post reads, according to a translation by Facebook.

A Pfizer representative told us in a statement that Thailand’s health authorities continue “to recommend vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for all authorized ages and indications.”

“With hundreds of millions of doses of the original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered globally, the benefit-risk profile of our vaccines remains positive for all authorized indications and age groups,” the company added.

Bhakdi told the AP in a Feb. 7 story that some online claims had been exaggerated, but that he had spoken with the “highest-ranking advisors to the government and Royal Family” about ending Pfizer’s contract and he hoped “there will be things to report in about 2 weeks.”

An official with Thailand’s National Vaccine Institute, however, confirmed to the AP that the nation was not planning to terminate any COVID-19 vaccine contracts.

“There are no orders to stop or slow down usage or reconsider its use,” the official said of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. “We are still moving forward and using it.”

Because the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain bacteria, there is no reason to think that the vaccines could cause mycoplasma infections, nor is there any indication vaccination could make someone more susceptible to them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not reported an association between mycoplasma infections and COVID-19 vaccines. 

Dr. Peter J. Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told us he is not aware of any association either.

“There’s no relationship with the Covid vaccine and mycoplasma infections,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert and a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told us in an email. “However, mycoplasma is a very well established cause of cardiac infection. It can cause myocarditis and pericarditis,” he added, referring to inflammation of the heart muscle and the surrounding tissue.

Contrary to Bhakdi’s comments, mycoplasma infections may be severe and life-threatening, although it’s rare. According to a 2018 study, on top of the pulmonary symptoms, Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections can also involve other organs, such as the heart. “Cardiac symptoms are uncommon” the study says, but can include heart inflammation and arrhythmias.

There is evidence that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine may rarely cause myocarditis and pericarditis. But most of those rare cases happen in young males, after a second dose. The conditions can also occur with COVID-19, and evidence suggests those cases are more severe. To date, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks in all populations.

There are reports of patients being coinfected with COVID-19 and Mycoplasma pneumoniae, although it’s rare and the impact on the severity of having both illnesses together is still unknown.

Thailand’s king and queen tested positive for COVID-19 on Dec. 17, three days after their daughter collapsed, but there is no public information regarding the princess’s COVID-19 status. 

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

Sources

“Thai princess collapses from heart condition, palace says.” BBC. 15 Dec 2022.

Statements/Announcements of the Bureau of the Royal Household. Thailand Royal Office website.

Mycoplasma Infections. WebMD. 28 Mar 2020. 

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Infections. CDC. 24 Aug 2022.

Bajantri, Bharat, et al. “Mycoplasma pneumoniae: A Potentially Severe Infection.” Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 4 Jun 2018. 

Izumikawa, Koichi. “Clinical Features of Severe or Fatal Mycoplasma pneumoniae Pneumonia.” Frontiers in Microbiology. 1 Jun 2016.

Funke, Daniel. “Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines don’t cause death, won’t decimate world’s population.” USA Today. 30 Apr 2021. 

Carballo-Carbajal, Iria. “Unsubstantiated claims by Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bhakdi don’t demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines harm organs.” Health Feedback. 29 Aug 2022. 

McDonald, Jessica. “A Guide to Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine.” FactCheck.org. Updated 27 Sep 2022. 

Marcello, Philip. “Thai official: No plans to void Pfizer COVID vaccine contract.” AP. 7 Feb 2023. 

Kasprak, Alex. “Is Thailand Banning the Pfizer Vaccine After Princess Bajrakitiyabha Fell Into Coma?.” Snopes. 7 Feb 2023. 

Dapcevich, Madison. “Fact Check: Thailand Does NOT Plan To ‘Nullify’ Pfizer-BioNTech Contracts — NO Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Caused Thai Princess’ Collapse.” Lead Stories. 7 Feb 2023. 

Thailand Department of Disease Control Facebook Page. Post. 2 Feb 2023. 

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. CDC. Updated 6 Feb 2023. 

Possible Side Effects After Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine. CDC. Updated 14 Sept 2022. 

Hotez, Peter J. Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 9 Feb 2023. 

Adalja, Amesh. Infectious disease expert and a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 9 Feb 2023. 

Jaramillo, Catalina. “Benefits of COVID-19 Vaccination Outweigh the Rare Risk of Myocarditis, Even in Young Males.” FactCheck.org. Updated 5 Apr 2022.

Zha, Lei, et al. “Clinical features and outcomes of adult COVID-19 patients co-infected with Mycoplasma pneumoniae.” Journal of Infection. Sep 2022. 

Block, Jason P., et al. “Cardiac Complications After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination — PCORnet, United States, January 2021–January 2022.” MMWR. 1 Apr 2022. 

“Thailand’s king, queen test positive for COVID-19.” AP. 17 Dec 2022.

The post Thai Princess’s Coma Due to Infection, Country Not Banning Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer. But posts on social media falsely claimed Milley “never served in combat.” Milley has an “extensive background of combat experience,” according to the U.S. Army, including deployment to Iraq and three tours in Afghanistan. 

Full Story

As the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since October 2019, Gen. Mark A. Milley is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer. 

Milley, who is also the principal military advisor to President Joe Biden, has served in the military for more than 42 years and has a long combat history. 

Yet, posts on social media falsely claimed Milley “never served in combat and never won a war.”

“Can someone explain to me how a man who never served in combat and never won a war has THIS many medals on his uniform,” journalist Jordan Schachtel questioned in a tweet that shows Milley with numerous military decorations. 

The tweet since has been deleted, but the claim continued to circulate. 

Benny Johnson, a contributor to the conservative organization Turning Point USA and a frequent spreader of misinformation, shared a screenshot of Schachtel’s tweet in an Instagram post on Feb. 8, which received more than 64,600 likes.

But, as we said, the post’s claim regarding Milley’s combat experience is wrong. 

An article about Milley on the U.S. Army website says he has an “extensive background of combat experience having deployed in support of numerous operational assignments including: Multinational Force and Observers Sinai in Egypt, Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti, Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.” He also deployed to Somalia and Colombia.

Milley’s biography on the Department of Defense website notes that he served three tours in Afghanistan. He has also held command positions in eight divisions and Special Forces, including as deputy commanding general and commanding general. 

In a Department of Defense photo, Milley can be seen with a wide range of medals on his military uniform, including several medals and badges related to combat efforts.

The top badge on his left side is the Combat Infantryman Badge with a star. To be eligible to wear this medal, one has to meet certain requirements, which include being “assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat” and “[a]ctively participate in such ground combat.”

To receive the Korean Defense Service Medal — also shown on the left side of Milley’s uniform — one must have been “engaged in actual combat” during service in Korea; “be killed, wounded or injured in the line of duty”; or participated as an aircrew member flying an aircraft over certain areas in support of the operation.

On his right, Milley’s uniform includes an Army Meritorious Unit Commendation award, given for outstanding service for six consecutive months during a military operation against an armed enemy. “Although service in a combat zone is not required, the unit’s accomplishments must be directly related to the larger combat effort,” according to the American War Library.

According to the Association of the United States Army, Milley’s awards, badges and decorations include the “Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Army Distinguished Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Legion of Merit with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Bronze Star Medal with three bronze oak leaf clusters; Meritorious Service Medal with silver oak leaf cluster; Army Commendation Medal with four bronze oak leaf clusters; Army Achievement Medal with one bronze oak leaf cluster; National Defense Service Medal with one bronze service star; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two bronze service stars; Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars; Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Korea Defense Service Medal; Humanitarian Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral 5; NATO Medal with bronze service star; and the Multi-national Force and Observers Medal… Combat Infantryman Badge with star; Expert Infantryman Badge; Master Parachutist Badge; Scuba Diver Badge; Ranger Tab; Special Forces Tab; Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge; Joint Meritorious Unit Award; and Meritorious Unit Commendation and the French Military Parachutist Badge.”

Milley served in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after the attacks on 9/11. Neither mission was considered a success for the U.S. The U.S. military hasn’t had a clear victory since the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, when the U.S. successfully led a coalition that defended Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion.  

U.S. Army officials said in a 2019 report — after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was deposed — that “Iran appears to be the only victor” of the Iraqi war.

The U.S. removed its remaining troops from Afghanistan in 2021, ending the U.S. military’s 20-year presence there and relinquishing control of the country to the Taliban. 

But it’s worth noting that Milley was part of several military missions that were declared a success by the U.S. Army and reports from the Department of Defense. They include Operation Just Cause, a mission in Panama to restore power to elected official Guillermo Endara and arrest dictator Manual Noriega in 1989, and Operation Uphold Democracy, a U.S.-led military intervention authorized by the United Nations to restore elected government officials in Haiti in 1996. 

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

Sources

Fernholz, Tim. “Army says Iran is the only victory of the Iraq War.” Yahoo. 22 Jan 2019.

Department of Defense. “MARK A. MILLEY.” Accessed 9 Feb 2023. 

Oberle, Tim. “Get to Know the New Chief of Staff of the Army – General Mark A. Milley.” U.S. Army. 18 Aug 2015. 

Jones, Brea. “Spending Bill Includes Pay Raise for Staffers, Not Members of Congress.” FactCheck.org. 6 May 2023.

History.com. “Saddam Hussein captured.” 13 Dec 2003.

Schwaller, Shannon. “Operation Just Cause: the Invasion of Panama.” U.S. Army. 17 Nov 2008.

Defense Technical Information Center. “Operation Uphold Democracy: Military Support for Democracy in Haiti.” 1 Jun 1996.

“GEN. MARK A. MILLEY, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY.” Association of the United States Army. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

“Meritorious Unit Commendation Display Recognition.” The American War Library. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

“Korean Defense Service Medal.” Air Force’s Personnel Center. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

The post Gen. Milley Has Long Combat History, Contrary to Social Media Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Hearst Television — one of our media partners — produced this fact-checking video segment featuring our article on President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address.

The segment aired on numerous local TV news stations owned and operated by Hearst. It examined Biden’s claims about job creation, inflation and wages, and deficit reduction. For more on these claims and others, see our full story, “FactChecking the State of the Union.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post Video: Hearst on the State of the Union appeared first on FactCheck.org.

SciCheck Digest

Pregnancy tests contain a desiccant tablet to absorb moisture and keep the test dry before use. But posts on social media falsely claim the tablet is a “hidden plan B” pill. Companies that produce pregnancy tests include a warning on their websites not to consume the desiccant tablets inside. 

Full Story 

A pregnancy test can confirm pregnancy by checking urine for human chorionic gonadotrophin, or HCG, a hormone that is made in the body when a person is pregnant. 

The components of a pregnancy test stick include an absorbent pad, a nitrocellulose membrane with an antibody test line, and a desiccant tablet. 

The desiccant tablet is a small circular capsule that absorbs moisture and keeps the pregnancy test dry before use. Desiccant tablets are not edible, and manufacturers of pregnancy tests advise people to seek medical attention if they ingest the tablet.

Yet, posts on social media falsely claim that the desiccant tablet is a Plan B pill, a trend that began in 2019 and has been repeated over the years.

Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, is an emergency contraceptive used to reduce the chance of pregnancy for women who’ve had unprotected sex or whose birth control method has failed, as explained by the Mayo Clinic. 

Morning-after pills contain either levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate, which both delay ovulation. Plan B doesn’t work if you are already pregnant. 

Plan B pills have been under scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June to overturn Roe v. Wade, which removed the federal right to an abortion and allowed each state to decide whether abortion procedures should be legal, restricted or banned.

Following the court ruling, the FDA changed the Plan B label in December to specify that the product does not end an existing pregnancy or cause abortions.

A Jan. 27 video on Facebook revived the false claim that there is a Plan B pill in pregnancy test kits by posting a compilation video of several men opening a pregnancy test stick and a tablet falling out from inside. 

Tyler Kwidzinski, the user who posted the video and the last of the men featured in the clip, said in the caption of the video, “I found a hidden plan B in a pregnancy test.”

But, again, that’s not what is inside the pregnancy tests. 

First Response, the brand used by Kwidzinski in the video, features a warning on its website that reads: “All of our First Response Test Sticks contain a small desiccant disc, which should not be eaten. If ingested, please contact our Consumer Relations Department at the Safety call number… or your medical provider.”

Clearblue, another brand shown in the video, also addressed the false claims on its website (emphasis theirs): “We are aware of videos circulating about Clearblue pregnancy tests and the tablet found inside. Clearblue pregnancy tests do NOT contain Plan B. All our tests contain a small desiccant tablet which is included to absorb moisture and should not be eaten.” 

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

Sources

Mayo Clinic. “Home pregnancy tests: Can you trust the results?” 23 Dec 2022

Future Learn. “How Does a Pregnancy Test Work?” Accessed 7 Feb 2023.

Clearblue.com. Pregnancy Test. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.

Kiely, Eugene and Lori Robertson. “What happens if Roe v. Wade is Overturned?” FactCheck.org. Updated 24 June 2022. 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Plan B One-Step (1.5 mg levonorgestrel) Information.” 23 Dec 2022. 

Goodman, Brenda. “FDA specifies Plan B emergency contraceptive does not cause abortions.” CNN. 23 Dec 2022. 

The post Moisture-Absorbent Tablet in Pregnancy Tests, Not ‘Hidden Plan B’ Pill appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Summary

President Joe Biden put his spin on some facts, particularly about the economy, in his Feb. 7 State of the Union address:

• Biden boasted that the 12.1 million jobs created in his first two years were more than the number of jobs added in four years under any president. But that job growth was fueled by a post-pandemic recovery that started under his predecessor, and his comparison doesn’t account for population growth.
• The president said “take-home pay has gone up,” which is true, but the rise is not as fast as inflation. “Real” weekly earnings, which are adjusted for inflation, have gone down.
• Biden said he has cut the deficit by a record $1.7 trillion, but most of that was due to expiring emergency pandemic spending.
• He said “no president added more to the national debt in any four years” than his predecessor, Donald Trump, and that “nearly 25% of the entire national debt” was added by Trump. It’s accurate, but trillions of dollars of the accumulated debt under Trump were due to bipartisan coronavirus relief packages.
• Biden said “for too many decades, we imported projects and exported jobs,” but now “we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs.” In fact, U.S. imports of goods and services have continued to exceed exports under Biden.
• The president repeated a claim popular among Democrats during the midterms, suggesting that some Republicans would “sunset” Medicare and Social Security. The claim exaggerates the support for a proposal from Sen. Rick Scott that would have brought up all federal legislation for a vote every five years.
• With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the U.S. is “replacing poisonous lead pipes that go into 10 million homes in America, 400,000 schools and childcare centers,” he said. But the law didn’t provide enough funding to replace all lead pipes.
• As he did last year, Biden said U.S. infrastructure had “sunk to 13th in the world.” But some have questioned the report behind that statistic.

Analysis

Jobs

In boasting about job growth, the president said that more jobs were created in his first two years than in four years under any president.

“Two years ago, the economy was reeling,” Biden said. “I stand here tonight, after we’ve created — with the help of many people in this room — 12 million new jobs. More jobs created in two years than any president has created in four years.”

The president is cherry-picking the data.

For starters, the job growth under Biden was fueled by a post-pandemic job recovery that started under his predecessor.

The World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The deadly pandemic sent U.S. residents into lockdown and forced businesses to close. The U.S. job market bottomed out in April 2020, when the U.S. had 21.9 million fewer jobs than the pre-COVID employment peak in February 2020, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It is true that the U.S. economy has added 12.1 million jobs in Biden’s first 24 months. But the economy also added 12.5 million jobs in Trump’s final nine months in office.

Since April 2020, the U.S. has added a total of 24.6 million jobs under both presidents. That’s 2.7 million more than the number of jobs lost during the pandemic.

Biden’s apples-to-oranges job comparison also benefits from the fact that there are more people in the job market now than under past presidents.

Under Jimmy Carter, the U.S. economy added 10.3 million jobs in four years. While larger, the 12.1 million jobs added so far under Biden represents a job growth of 8.5% — far less than the 12.8% job growth under Carter.

President Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 and was reelected in 1964. In LBJ’s only full term in office, from January 1965 to January 1969, the U.S. economy added 9.9 million jobs — a 16.54% job growth that is nearly double the rate in Biden’s first two years.

Wages

The president, while admitting “we have more to do,” said the economy has been improving, specifically inflation and wages.

“Inflation has fallen every month for the last six months, while take-home pay has gone up,” he said.

He’s right that the inflation rate for the past 12 months was 6.5% in December — which was the sixth straight month that the year-over-year inflation rate had declined. Wages also have gone up under Biden, but not as fast as prices — so the “take-home pay,” as Biden called it, doesn’t buy as much as it used to.

Average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers went up 11% during Biden’s first 24 months in office, according to monthly figures compiled by the BLS. Those production and nonsupervisory workers make up 81% of all employees in the private sector.

But what are called “real” weekly earnings, adjusted for inflation and measured in dollars valued at their average level in 1982-84, actually declined 3.7% since Biden took office in January 2021.

But, as Biden said, recently real wages have been rising as inflation has moderated. During the last half of 2022, real weekly earnings rose 1.4%.

Deficit Down Due to Expiring COVID-19 Relief

Biden boasted that he has reduced the deficit by a record $1.7 trillion.

“In the last two years, my administration has cut the deficit by more than $1.7 trillion – the largest deficit reduction in American history,” Biden said.

The amount of the two-year drop in deficits is accurate. The FY 2020 deficit was $3.13 trillion and the FY 2022 deficit was $1.375 trillion. That translates to a roughly $1.7 trillion drop. But the deficit in FY 2022 is still nearly 41% higher than it was in FY 2019, before the pandemic hit.

As we wrote back in April, most of the reduction in deficits is the result of expiring emergency pandemic spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in February 2021 — shortly after Biden took office and before any of Biden’s fiscal policies were enacted — that due to expiring pandemic relief, the combined deficits in FY 2021 and FY 2022 would total $3.31 trillion, a big decline considering that in FY 2020 the one-year total alone was $3.13 trillion. But the deficits for FY 2021 and 2022 ended up totaling $4.15 trillion. In other words, the deficits for those years ended being about $840 billion more than expected.

Biden argues that growth in the economy as a result of his policies are the reason why deficits dropped, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that doesn’t add up.

“100% of the deficit reduction, on net, was the result of waning COVID relief,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us via email. “That’s because while higher revenue (due to inflation as much as growth!) did reduce deficits even further, additional legislative and executive actions (especially student debt cancellation, which they weirdly recorded in FY2022) and higher interest rates pushed in the other direction.” (Biden’s student debt cancellation program was paused by a District Court judge in November, and its fate will now be determined by the Supreme Court.)

In a blog post on Oct. 21, at the end of the 2022 fiscal year, CRFB said that deficits fell more than expected last year “due to a combination of lower unemployment, faster economic recovery, and higher inflation, partially offset by higher interest rates.”

But, CRFB warned, “while economic changes reduced the deficit by $310 billion in FY 2022, they will actually increase deficits by over $1.5 trillion between 2023 and 2032 under [the Congressional Budget Office’s] baseline. Factors such as higher inflation tend to increase revenues in the near-term but increase spending and push up interest costs over time. Economic changes are likely to boost deficits even further when including more recent economic data, since interest rates are now much higher and economic growth much weaker than CBO projected in the spring.”

“All said, the decline in the deficit over the past fiscal year is more than entirely the result of waning COVID relief and not of historic deficit reduction by President Biden as the White House claims,” CRFB wrote. “In fact, the President’s actions to date have increased deficits by $4.8 trillion through 2031.” 

Debt and Deficits Under Trump

Biden also took aim at the deficits and debt rolled up by his predecessor, Donald Trump.

“Under the previous administration, the American deficit went up four years in a row,” Biden said. “Because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt in any four years than my predecessor. Nearly 25% of the entire national debt, that took over 200 years to accumulate, was added by just one administration alone, the last one. They’re the facts. Check it out. Check it out.”

The total national debt did go up by $7.8 trillion during Trump’s four years. It rose from nearly $20 trillion the day Trump was inaugurated to nearly $27.8 trillion on the day he left office.

That figure, however, includes money the U.S. owes to itself. We typically use figures for the amount of debt held by the public, which went up by $7.2 trillion during Trump’s time in office, from $14.4 trillion on the day Trump was inaugurated to $21.6 trillion four years later when Biden was sworn in.

By either measure, Biden is correct that more than 25% of the debt was accumulated while Trump was president. It’s also true that debt held by the public went up by $8.1 trillion during the eight years of former President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden. So an even bigger share of the debt inherited by Biden was accumulated when he was vice president.

As we have written, while Biden’s statistic is accurate, it leaves a misleading impression because trillions of dollars of the accumulated debt under Trump were due to bipartisan coronavirus relief packages. It’s true, as Biden said, that deficits went up every year under Trump — in part due to the 2017 tax cut law that was was supported only by Republicans. But deficits exploded during the pandemic, jumping from just under $1 trillion in FY 2019 to $3.13 trillion in FY 2020.

Before the pandemic, the deficits in the three prior years under Trump were lower than all of the deficits in Obama’s first four years in office (but higher than the deficits in Obama’s last three years in office). And, as we noted earlier, the pre-pandemic deficits under Trump are significantly lower than any year under Biden so far.

Trade Deficit

Under Biden, U.S. imports of goods and services have continued to exceed exports. However, Biden gave the false impression that was no longer the case.

“For too many decades, we imported projects and exported jobs,” he said. “Now, thanks to what you all have done, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs.”

According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S exports of goods and services totaled over $3 trillion in 2022 — up more than $453 billion from 2021 and $851 billion from 2020. But imports of goods and services, which totaled over $3.9 trillion last year, have grown even faster — up $556 billion from 2021 and $1.1 trillion from 2020.

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was $948 billion in 2022. That’s now the highest annual deficit going back to 1960, and it’s up 12% from the deficit in 2021 and nearly 45% higher than 2020.

As for what Biden said about creating and exporting jobs, an expert in international trade economics previously told us that “the trade balance is a very poor reflection of what’s going on in the labor market in the U.S.”

Medicare and Social Security

Republicans in Congress booed the president when he suggested that some among them would “sunset” Medicare and Social Security — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shouted “liar.”

“Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans,” Biden said. “All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s the majority. Anybody who doubts it, contact my office. I’ll give you a copy of the proposal.”

We did. His office referred us to a news story that mentioned a proposal from Sen. Rick Scott that would have required all federal legislation to be subject to renewal every five years. Both Medicare and Social Security were created by legislation.

As we’ve written before, Scott didn’t specifically mention Medicare or Social Security in his proposal, but he did acknowledge that they would be included — although he said his aim was to “fix” the programs.

Scott — of Florida, who was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — said in a March 27 interview on Fox News, “No one that I know of wants to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but what we’re doing is we don’t even talk about it.”

And, at a press conference on March 1, Scott stood behind Sen. Mitch McConnell as he said, “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years. That will not be part of a Republican Senate majority agenda.”

So, it’s a stretch to claim that there was anything close to significant support for ending the programs among Republicans — not even the proposal’s author supported ending them.

Lead Pipe Replacement

While talking about what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will do, Biden said, “We’re also replacing poisonous lead pipes that go into 10 million homes in America, 400,000 schools and childcare centers, so every child in America — every child in America — can drink the water instead of having permanent damage to their brain.”

But as we have explained before, the $15 billion provided by the infrastructure law for lead pipe replacement is not nearly enough to replace all lead pipes. According to a basic calculation by the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution in February 2022, the cost of replacing 10 million lead service lines is $47 billion, based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimated average cost for replacing a line.

“A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on EPA’s estimate of average replacement cost per line ($4,700) and assumption of 6 to 10 million lead service lines across the country suggests the cost could range from $28 billion to $47 billion, putting Biden’s originally-proposed $45 billion near the top of that range—but the $15 billion legislated well below it,” experts from Brookings wrote. 

On Jan. 27, the Biden administration announced “new actions and progress” to remove lead pipes and paint. Those actions included the creation of a partnership between private and public organizations to “leverage existing efforts and funding” to “help accelerate” the goal of “the replacement of 100 percent of the Nation’s lead service lines in 10 years.” There’s also a partnership between the EPA and four states (Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) to “accelerate progress” in the identification and replacement of lead service lines. 

In a press release about that initiative, EPA said that in addition to the $15 billion for lead service line replacement in the infrastructure law, “$11.7 billion of general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds … can also be used for lead service line replacement.”

The White House has said that other funds can also be used by state, local and tribal governments for replacing lead service lines, such as the $350 billion in aid provided under the American Rescue Plan. During a visit to Philadelphia on Feb. 3, Biden said Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, already used $17.5 million “as part of their plan to replace lead service lines in the city by 2026.” 

“They got to do that through this state and throughout — we got to do it throughout the country,” he added in his Feb. 3 remarks. 

Whether that will happen or not, remains to be seen.  

Infrastructure

In talking about the bipartisan infrastructure law, Biden repeated a claim he made in last year’s speech: “We used to be No. 1 in the world in infrastructure. We’ve sunk to 13th in the world. The United States of America: 13th in the world in infrastructure.”

As we wrote a year ago, his claim is based on a 2019 Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum, in which the U.S. overall ranked second among 141 economies, but 13th in infrastructure.

But some said the report underrated the U.S. The Washington Post’s Charles Lane said the countries ranked higher than the U.S. were smaller and not comparable to a country as large as this. When considering the largest countries in the world, both geographically and in terms of population, the U.S. comes first in terms of infrastructure in the list. China, for example, ranked 36th, Canada 26th, India 70th and the Russian Federation 50th. Also, the 13th place is an improvement when compared with the 2011-12 report that ranked U.S. infrastructure in 24th place out of 142 economies.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Sources

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index News Release.” 12 Jan 2023.

Rugaber, Christopher. “US inflation eases grip on economy, falling for a 6th month.” Associated Press. 12 Jan 2023.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National): Total Nonfarm.” Accessed 7 Feb 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, total private.” Data extracted 7 Feb 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, 1982-1984 dollars, total private.” Data extracted 7 Feb 2023.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline.” 16 Aug 2022.

Gore, D’Angelo. “Biden’s Claims About an Increase in Exports Ignore Larger Growth in Imports.” FactCheck.org. 14 Dec 2022.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. U.S. Trade in Goods and Services, 1960-present. Bea.gov. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, December and Annual 2022.” Bea.gov. 7 Feb 2023.

McDonald, Jessica, et al. “FactChecking Biden’s Press Conference.” FactCheck.org. Updated 11 Feb 2022. 

Campbell, Sophia, and David Wessel. “What would it cost to replace all the nation’s lead water pipes?” Brookings. 13 May 2021. 

“FACT SHEET:  Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions and Progress to Protect Communities From Lead Pipes and Paint.” The White House. Statements and Releases. 27 Jan 2023.

“Biden-⁠Harris “Get the Lead Out” Partnership.” The White House. Blog. 26 Jan 2023.

“Lead Service Line Replacement Accelerators.” EPA. 30 Jan 2023. 

“EPA Launches New Initiative to Accelerate Lead Pipe Replacement to Protect Underserved Communities.” EPA. Press release. 27 Jan 2023. 

“Remarks by President Biden on the Administration’s Efforts to Replace Lead Pipes and Provide Clean Drinking Water for All Americans.” The White House. Speeches and Remarks. 3 Feb 2023.

Lane, Charles. “Opinion: No, America’s infrastructure is not ‘crumbling.’” Washington Post. 6 Apr 2021.

Kiely, Eugene, et al. “FactChecking Biden’s State of the Union Address.” FactCheck.org. 2 Mar 2022.

Schwab, Klaus. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum. 2019.

Schwab, Klaus. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-12. World Economic Forum. 2011.

Delaney, Arthur. “Marjorie Taylor Greene Shouts ‘Liar’ At Joe Biden During State Of The Union.” Yahoo News. 7 Feb 2023.

Tankersley, Jim. “Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare.” New York Times. 2 Nov 2022.

Bates, Andrew. Spokesman, Executive Office of the President. Email to FactCheck.org. 7 Feb 2023.

Scott, Rick. “An 11-point Plan to Rescue America.” Archived 28 Mar 2022.

Farley, Robert. “Democrats Misleadingly Claim ‘Republicans’ Plan’ Would ‘End’ Social Security, Medicare.” FactCheck.org. 29 Apr 2022.

Gancarski, A.G. “Rick Scott says he wants ‘review’ and not end to Social Security, Medicare.” Florida Politics. 30 Mar 2022.

Fox News Sunday. Transcript. 27 Mar 2022.

“Senator McConnell Rules Out Tax Increase and Sunsetting Proposals If GOP Retake Majority.” C-SPAN. 1 Mar 2022.

The post FactChecking the State of the Union appeared first on FactCheck.org.

SciCheck Digest

Research suggests COVID-19 vaccination can cause changes in a person’s menstrual cycle. But the changes are small and short-lived — and studies have shown there’s no effect on fertility. Yet people on social media are suggesting the cycle changes are evidence of harm.

How do we know vaccines are safe?

Full Story

Soon after the COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, some women reported brief changes to their menstrual cycles following a COVID-19 vaccine dose. Because there is often a lot of variability in period cycles, though, it wasn’t clear whether the shots necessarily caused the changes. 

Formal studies investigating the phenomenon have since found that COVID-19 vaccination does appear to be associated with menstrual cycle alterations — but the changes are small and fleeting.

Multiple studies, for example, have now shown that a COVID-19 vaccine dose is associated with a short delay until a person’s next period — on average, less than one additional day — and that the delays are gone within the next cycle or two.

Experts who have conducted the studies have emphasized that the changes are not concerning, given the small effects and the fact that an abundance of other data show no effect of COVID-19 vaccination on female fertility. Still, women should be aware of the possibility, so they’re not surprised if their period is a bit different after they get vaccinated.

Despite the robust evidence, some people are pointing to the menstrual cycle changes to baselessly suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.

The latest online furor over the topic stems from an undercover video released on Feb. 2 by Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for producing controversial undercover videos using deceptive practices. In the video, a man named Jordon Trishton Walker, who is identified as a Pfizer director, alluded to menstrual cycle changes following vaccination.

“There is something irregular about their menstrual cycles,” he said, “So, people will have to investigate that down the line because that is a little concerning.” He went on to speculate about the cause of the cycle alterations, and said the vaccine “shouldn’t be interfering” with menstruation.

As we said, experts who have looked into this say it’s not concerning. But people opposed to COVID-19 vaccination quickly shared the video, which Project Veritas promoted as a Pfizer “Director Concerned Over Women’s Reproductive [Health] After COVID-19 Vaccinations.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who has a history of spreading misinformation, retweeted the video, adding suggestively, “Many women have reported problems with their menstrual cycles after taking the vaccines. And women have reported miscarriages as well. We need answers and we will be asking.”

Miscarriage, which occurs in around 10% to 20% of pregnancies, is not more common after COVID-19 vaccination, as we’ve written. All of the available evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and benefit both the mother and the fetus.

On the same day the Project Veritas video was released, other purveyors of COVID-19 misinformation also incorrectly concluded that if the vaccines alter menstrual cycles, then they must be harmful to female fertility. 

“Menstrual changes even by one day in the cycle influence ovulation, fertilization, implantation, and uterine shedding,” wrote Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist known for spreading COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, on Twitter. “So any perturbation will almost certainly lead to population decreases in fecundity and fertility.”

But Viki Male, a lecturer in reproductive immunology at Imperial College London who has studied menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination, said on Twitter that McCullough’s claim was “unfounded.”

Numerous studies have not found any effect of vaccination on female fertility. And one study, Male noted, found no reduction in fertility even for the menstrual cycle in which someone is vaccinated. “This makes sense since cycle delays – though they do happen – are in the order of a day, which is longer than the window of implantation in humans,” she added.

“Vaccines are meant to temporarily activate our immune system in order to recognize and help prevent or mitigate a future infection so we hypothesize that this temporary activation creates a temporary disturbance in the processes around menstruation which results in some individuals experiencing changes,” Dr. Alison Edelman, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Oregon Health & Science University who has also studied the menstrual change phenomenon, told us in an email. 

“If someone experiences a change, research demonstrates that for the majority of people it does not appear to be long-lasting,” she added. “We also know that menstruation can be a sign of fertility health – we now have good evidence demonstrating no impact on the ability to get pregnant and that the vaccine is safe for pregnant individuals, which is a population at greater risk of severe illness and death from COVID19 infection.”

The video was one of several Project Veritas released with Walker, who purportedly thought he was on a date when he was secretly recorded. FactCheck.org was unable to verify whether Walker was ever a Pfizer employee, or whether he held the claimed title of “Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning.” Pfizer has not responded to our inquiries about him. 

A man with his name, however, graduated in 2018 from UT Southwestern Medical School, according to a graduation ceremony program available online. Tufts Medical Center told us he worked as a general surgery intern for a year, and Boston Consulting Group told us he was employed as a consultant from January 2020 until June 2021. This suggests Walker has broad medical training, but no specific knowledge of obstetrics and gynecology or vaccines.

Indeed, Male said on Twitter that given Walker’s uninformed comments in the video, “I doubt that this person (who the interviewer says is a urologist) has anything to do with vaccine development or safety.”

Menstrual Cycle Changes Following Vaccination

Studies have consistently found that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a temporary, slightly longer time between periods.

One of the first studies, published last January and led by Edelman, analyzed period tracking app data from nearly 4,000 participants in the U.S. who had normal-length periods and were not using hormonal birth control. The volunteers were enrolled in the study prior to any COVID-19 vaccination, and about 60% of people were vaccinated.

Because periods are naturally variable, the researchers looked at cycle length changes before and after vaccination for each person and compared them with unvaccinated people over the same amount of time. Vaccination was not associated with a change in bleeding time, but was associated with less than a one-day increase in cycle length, which rose to about two days for the small group of people who received two vaccine doses in the same menstrual cycle. The cycle length changes went away after one to two cycles.

A follow-up study, which Edelman and Male co-authored and published in September, used the same method for a global population of nearly 20,000 people, and found a less-than-one-day increase in cycle length that returned to normal within one cycle. 

Another study, published in November, took a similar approach with period data inputted from almost 10,000 iPhone users, and identified a half-day or less increase in menstrual cycles after a COVID-19 dose. This increase disappeared within the cycle after vaccination. 

“Menstrual cycle change following COVID-19 vaccination appears small and temporary and should not discourage individuals from becoming vaccinated,” the paper concluded.

A study of 79 people in the U.K., conducted by Male, also found vaccination associated with a small delay in the next period, which quickly returned to normal. The study, while small, did not identify any cycle length changes among vaccinated people using hormonal birth control.

Finally, a study of almost 4,000 nurses in North America, which surveyed people every six months, found vaccinated women had a 48% higher risk of reporting a longer cycle than unvaccinated women — a result that did not extend to the next survey.

A few studies have identified other possible temporary menstrual changes following vaccination, including increases in blood flow, but these are not as well studied. 

Possible Mechanisms for Menstrual Changes

In one part of the Project Veritas video, Walker, whose remarks were edited, speculated about the mechanism for the menstrual cycle changes, saying “it has to be affecting something hormonal.” He added that “we need to figure out how it is impacting these hormones because the signaling starts in the brain” and “the vaccine doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier.”

A hormone-based explanation is certainly one of the leading hypotheses for why vaccination can cause some small, temporary changes to menstrual cycles. 

As Male laid out in a review published in Science in November, there are two plausible, non-mutually exclusive mechanisms: one involving the innate immune system’s interim ability to interfere with hormones, and another involving immune cells such as macrophages and natural killer cells, which help control the shedding and regrowth of the uterine lining.

Regardless, “nothing untoward is going on in the brain,” Male told us.

“We don’t yet know exactly how COVID vaccination is causing these small changes to menstrual timing and flow, but I think the most likely possibility is that aspects of the immune response can temporarily alter the way the hypothalamus, pituitary and ovaries communicate with each other (the HPO axis),” she said in an email. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that the vaccine gets into or directly affects any of these organs (there is no evidence of this) but rather [that] they are responding to the general immune activation in your body.”

“We already know that this can happen in fever, which affects about 15% of people who are vaccinated,” Male continued. “As part of initiating the protective immune response, immune molecules called ‘cytokines’ are produced, and some of these reset the thermostat of the hypothalamus to increase your body temperature. It’s possible that a similar mechanism is at work to alter the timing of periods and one piece of evidence in support of this is that people whose cycles are driven by taking hormonal contraception seem to be less likely to notice a change than people whose cycles are being driven by their HPO axis.”

In her review, Male noted that menstrual changes have been reported before for other vaccines, and there is some evidence to indicate that such changes might occur after infection with the coronavirus. The studies on COVID-19, however, she said, have not been as rigorously done as for vaccination, in part because infection is much harder to study.

Edelman and Male agree more research is needed in the long-understudied area of menstrual health, not just for the COVID-19 vaccines, but also for other vaccines and diseases.

“[W]e need to do a better job of listening and validating the patient experience and integrate issues which are important to the public, like menstrual health, into future vaccine trials so we can better mitigate fears and concerns,” Edelman said.

But it’s misleading for others to appeal to such concerns to undermine vaccination, when a significant body of work shows menstrual cycle changes are minor and temporary.

Saranac Hale Spencer contributed to this story.

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

Sources

Male, Victoria. “COVID-19 vaccination and menstruation.” Science. 17 Nov 2022.

Edelman, Alison et al. “Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination: A U.S. Cohort.” Obstetrics & Gynecology. 5 Jan 2022.

Edelman, Alison et al. “Association between menstrual cycle length and covid-19 vaccination: global, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.” BMJ Medicine. 27 Sep 2022.

Gibson, Elizabeth A. et al. “Covid-19 vaccination and menstrual cycle length in the Apple Women’s Health Study.” npj Digital Medicine. 2 Nov 2022. 

Alvergne, Alexandra et al. “Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on the timing and flow of menstrual periods in two cohorts.” Frontiers in Reproductive Health. 25 Jul 2022.

Brawley, Tracy. “COVID-19 vaccine may temporarily alter menstrual cycle length, should not be cause for concern.” Press release. OHSU. 6 Jan 2022.

Rideout, Nicole. “Global study finds COVID-19 vaccination can affect menstrual cycle.” Press release. OHSU. 27 Sep 2022.

Male, Viki. “Explainer on COVID vaccination, fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding.” Updated 6 Feb 2023.

Goldman, Adam. “Jury Rules Against Project Veritas in Lawsuit.” New York Times. 22 Sep 2022.

Boburg, Shawn et al. “A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.” Washington Post. 27 Nov 2017.

Goldman, Adam and Mark Mazzetti. “Project Veritas and the Line Between Journalism and Political Spying.” New York Times. 11 Nov 2021.

McDonald, Jessica. “COVID-19 Vaccination Doesn’t Increase Miscarriage Risk, Contrary to Naomi Wolf’s Spurious Stat.” FactCheck.org. 24 Aug 2022.

“COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding.” CDC. Updated 20 Oct 2022.

Male, Viki (@VikiLovesFACS). “Peter McCullough is out this morning making unfounded claims about #CovidVaccine effects on #fertility. My response… 1/.” Twitter. 3 Feb 2023.

Wesselink, Amelia K. et al. “A Prospective Cohort Study of COVID-19 Vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 Infection, and Fertility.” American Journal of Epidemiology. 20 Jan 2022.

Edelman, Alison. Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University. Email to FactCheck.org. 6 Feb 2023.

“The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Class of 2018 Academic Hooding Ceremony.” Program. Available online, DocPlayer.net.

Lechan, Jeremy. Media Relations Manager, Tufts Medical Center. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Jan 2023.

Sinha, Nidhi. Public Relations, Boston Consulting Group. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Jan 2023.

Male, Viki (@VikiLovesFACS). “In short, I doubt that this person (who the interviewer says is a urologist) has anything to do with vaccine development or safety. 4/4.” Twitter. 3 Feb 2023.

Wang, Siwen et al. “A prospective study of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination with changes in usual menstrual cycle characteristics.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 13 Jul 2022.

“Increased incidence of menstrual changes among young women after coronavirus vaccination.” Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Updated 20 Jan 2022.

Darney, Blair et al. “Impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on menstrual bleeding quantity: an observational cohort study.” Authorea preprint. 13 Sep 2022.

Lee, Katharine M. N. “Investigating trends in those who experience menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.” Science Advances. 15 Jul 2022.

Male, Viki. Lecturer in Reproductive Immunology at Imperial College London. Emails to FactCheck.org. 6 Feb 2023.

The post COVID-19 Vaccines Can Slightly Alter Menstrual Cycle Temporarily, But Don’t Harm Fertility appeared first on FactCheck.org.