Claim: During a White House meeting, former President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not being sufficiently thankful for U.S. support.

Fact: Contrary to Trump and Vance’s assertion, Zelensky has repeatedly expressed gratitude to the United States, its leaders, and its people for their support since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Multiple instances of public acknowledgments, including speeches, social media posts, and direct statements to U.S. officials, substantiate his appreciation.

Evidence:

1. January 21, 2022 (X/Twitter) – “Thank you @POTUS for the unprecedented (American) diplomatic and military assistance for (Ukraine).”
2. July 1, 2022 (X/Twitter) – “I commend US historic decision to provide UA with new security assistance package…Thank you @POTUS for your continued leadership.”
3. December 21, 2022 (Speech to U.S. Congress) – “I thank every American family which cherishes the warmth of its home and wishes the same warmth to other people…Thank you all, from everyone who is now at the front line.”
4. November 23, 2023 (X/Twitter) – “We thank you, the people of America. We know how many of you sincerely sympathize with our struggle…Thanks to American support and global leadership, millions of Ukrainian lives have been saved.”
5. December 12, 2023 (Joint Press Conference with Biden) – “Thank you, America, for your support.”
6. June 7, 2024 (Meeting with Biden) – “First of all, thank you so much for your significant support – you, your administration. We’re very thankful from all Ukrainians.”
7. July 4, 2024 (X/Twitter) – “Thank you, America. Thank you to every American heart that beats in solidarity with brave Ukrainian hearts.”

This is just a selection of the documented instances in which Zelensky has publicly thanked the U.S. The list is not exhaustive, but it clearly refutes the claim that he has been ungrateful.

Conclusion: The claim that Zelensky has not expressed sufficient gratitude to the U.S. is false. Public records and statements show that he has consistently thanked U.S. leaders, Congress, defense companies, and the American people. The remarks by Trump and Vance appear to be a misrepresentation of Zelensky’s stance rather than a factual assertion.

Claim: A viral social media post claims that Canada imposes exorbitant tariffs on American goods, with some exceeding 200 percent on dairy, poultry, sugar, and peanut butter.

Verdict: Misleading – Most U.S. goods enter Canada duty-free under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with higher tariffs only applying to agricultural products that exceed supply management quotas.

The Claim: A widely shared social media post alleges that Canada imposes extreme tariffs on U.S. imports, including fees over 200 percent on dairy and poultry and more than 100 percent on tobacco, rice, vegetables, and fish. The post suggests these tariffs were in place before former U.S. President Donald Trump imposed new duties on Canadian goods in March 2025.

Fact-Check Analysis: A detailed examination of the claim shows it to be misleading. Most U.S. goods enter Canada tariff-free under trade agreements that have been in place for decades.

1. USMCA and Tariff-Free Trade: The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA, allows most products to cross the border duty-free. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) classifies numerous U.S. imports as tariff-free, including cars, rice, aluminum, and footwear.
2. False Tariff Claims: The viral post includes exaggerated tariff rates for many products. A review of CBSA data confirms that items such as barley seed, peanut butter, bovine meat, and tobacco are not subject to import duties from the U.S.
3. Supply Management System: While Canada does impose high tariffs on certain agricultural products, these only apply if imports exceed pre-set quotas. For example, milk faces a 7.5 percent tariff within the quota but can rise to 241 percent for imports beyond the allowed limit. These measures are part of Canada’s supply management system, designed to stabilize domestic markets.
4. Historical Misinformation: Claims about high Canadian tariffs have circulated for years, often resurfacing during trade disputes. Trump previously cited a 270 percent tariff on milk without context during his presidency.
5. Trade Balance Data: Official statistics show that Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. is largely balanced. The primary trade surplus comes from oil and gas exports rather than excessive tariffs on U.S. products.

Conclusion: The viral social media post misrepresents Canadian tariffs by ignoring the duty-free status of most U.S. goods under USMCA. While high tariffs exist for select agricultural products exceeding import quotas, the majority of U.S. exports to Canada face no tariffs. The claim is misleading and lacks context.

Verdict: Misleading

Claim:

A viral social media post claims that former U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a ban preventing all Nigerian politicians from visiting the United States, froze international Nigerian bank accounts, and ordered the deportation of 2 million Nigerians.

Fact:

There is no evidence to support any of these claims. No official U.S. policy under Trump’s administration specifically banned Nigerian politicians, froze Nigerian bank accounts, or ordered mass deportations of Nigerians.

Investigation:

1. No Ban on Nigerian Politicians

• There is no official record or announcement from the U.S. State Department, White House, or Department of Homeland Security indicating any restriction on Nigerian politicians traveling to the United States.
• While Trump had previously imposed travel restrictions on certain countries, including Nigeria in 2020, it did not specifically target politicians but was instead related to visa policies affecting immigrant applications.
• Furthermore, Reuters reported on January 27 that Nigerian markets were still attracting investor interest, suggesting no direct hostility toward Nigerian political or financial institutions under Trump’s administration.

2. No Mass Deportation of Nigerians

• The claim that 2 million Nigerians face deportation is not backed by any credible data.
• According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records as of November 24, 2024, only 3,690 Nigerians were on the non-detained docket with final orders for removal—far from the 2 million figure stated in the viral post.
• U.S. Census Bureau estimates also show that the total Nigerian population in the U.S. is under 500,000, making it mathematically impossible for 2 million Nigerians to be facing deportation.
• Additionally, the Pew Research Center and Migration Policy Institute, both organizations that track U.S. immigration policies, have stated that the claim of mass Nigerian deportations is not supported by any data.

3. No Evidence of Nigerian Bank Account Freezes

• There is no U.S. Treasury Department directive or international financial sanction freezing Nigerian bank accounts.
• If such a policy had been implemented, it would have been widely reported in international media and financial networks, yet no reputable news organization has confirmed this claim.
• The White House, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Ministry did not respond to requests for comment, but no official records indicate any action against Nigerian accounts.

Conclusion:

The viral post falsely claims that Donald Trump banned Nigerian politicians from entering the U.S., froze Nigerian bank accounts, and ordered the deportation of 2 million Nigerians. There is no evidence or official documentation to support any of these allegations. The post is completely false and misleading.

Verdict: False

This claim is misinformation with no basis in reality.

Claim:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg alleged that Europe has “an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship” while announcing the end of third-party fact-checking in the U.S. He suggested that the European Union (EU) is pushing censorship laws to limit free speech.

Verdict:

The claim is misleading. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) does not engage in censorship but establishes regulatory measures for online platforms to combat illegal content, disinformation, and online harms. It does not dictate what is considered legal or illegal content but enforces transparency and accountability measures.

What Is the Digital Services Act (DSA)?

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a European law passed in 2022 that sets rules for online platforms to tackle illegal content, disinformation, child safety, and consumer protection. The law applies to all online services operating in the EU, including social media, search engines, marketplaces, and app stores.

Big Tech vs. EU Regulators

Tech giants like Meta, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) have clashed with EU regulators over the DSA. The EU has launched investigations into these platforms over issues like:

• Addictive algorithms influencing user behavior
• Misinformation and disinformation spreading unchecked
• Lack of transparency in ad targeting and content moderation

Recently, the EU formally charged X for failing to comply with the DSA, sparking a backlash from Elon Musk, who accused the EU of forcing platforms into censorship.

Does the DSA Promote Censorship?

The EU rejects allegations of censorship. A spokesperson from the European Commission stated that the DSA does not dictate content rules but ensures platforms enforce existing laws fairly and transparently.

The law requires platforms to:

 Remove illegal content (terrorism, child abuse, hate speech)
 Disclose how algorithms work to prevent manipulation
 Allow users to appeal content removals
 Ban ‘shadow banning’ without user notification

Who Decides What Content is Legal?

The EU does not unilaterally enforce content rules—national governments and independent regulators oversee compliance. The European Commission can investigate violations but cannot directly censor content.

What Does the DSA Mean for Social Media Users?

For the average user, the DSA does not change much in terms of free expression. People can still post as before, but platforms must be more transparent about how they moderate content.

Looking Ahead: EU vs. Trump Administration

With Donald Trump returning as U.S. President, there could be new tensions between the U.S. and EU over digital regulations. Meta has already signaled that it may push back against foreign governments, potentially leading to legal battles over how platforms should operate globally.

Conclusion

The EU’s Digital Services Act is not a censorship law—it regulates online platforms to prevent illegal content, improve transparency, and protect consumers. While Big Tech companies argue it imposes heavy restrictions, the law primarily aims to hold platforms accountable for harmful content while protecting users’ rights.

 Final Verdict: The claim that the EU is engaging in censorship through the DSA is misleading. The law does not limit free speech but ensures responsible digital governance.

Claim: Mark Zuckerberg plans to fire Meta’s U.S. fact-checkers, weaken disinformation moderation, and follow Elon Musk’s example to increase engagement by allowing misinformation to spread unchecked.

Verdict: MISLEADING

Fact:

1. Meta’s Fact-Checking Efforts
   • Meta has historically partnered with third-party fact-checking organizations to moderate content on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. These partnerships aim to label and reduce the visibility of false or misleading posts.
   • While there are reports suggesting a reduction in fact-checking efforts, Meta has not officially announced a complete termination of its partnerships or disinformation moderation.
2. Engagement Metrics and Misinformation
   • Studies confirm that misinformation spreads faster than accurate content on social media, often driving higher engagement.
   • Meta’s algorithms prioritize engagement, which can inadvertently amplify sensational or polarizing content.
3. Comparison to Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter)
   • The claim that Meta is “following Elon Musk’s example” oversimplifies the situation. While both platforms face criticism for reduced content moderation, Meta has not publicly adopted a “free speech absolutism” stance.
4. Ethical Concerns and Public Backlash
   • Meta has faced scrutiny over its prioritization of engagement over user safety. Historical criticism, such as Andrew Bosworth’s 2016 email, underscores the company’s controversial approach to user engagement.

Why the Claim is Misleading:

• The claim suggests a definitive, immediate end to fact-checking on Meta platforms, which is not fully substantiated. While changes in moderation policies may occur, the extent and specifics of these changes remain unclear.
• Assertions about motivations tied to a potential Trump administration and direct comparisons to Elon Musk’s X lack concrete evidence and are speculative.

Conclusion:
The claim contains elements of truth regarding Meta’s prioritization of engagement and challenges with misinformation. However, it exaggerates and oversimplifies the company’s actions and motivations, making it MISLEADING.

CLAIM 1:
The United States spends more on its public healthcare system than any other country in the world (Timestamp: 12:14 p.m. ET).

Verdict: True.
The U.S. leads in public healthcare spending, with $1.8 trillion spent in 2023, accounting for 7% of GDP. While some poorer nations spend more per capita, the overall expenditure is the highest globally.

CLAIM 2:
Trump said he won popular votes in the U.S. election by the millions (Timestamp: 12:18 p.m. ET).

Verdict: True.
Trump received 2.4 million more popular votes than Kamala Harris in 2024, though his win was ultimately determined by a 312-226 Electoral College lead.

CLAIM 3:
“To the Black and Hispanic communities, I want to thank you for the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote” (Timestamp: 12:19 p.m. ET).

Verdict: Mostly True.
Trump secured the highest share of Hispanic and Black votes for a Republican in over 40 years. However, Kamala Harris still received a greater share of these votes.

CLAIM 4:
“The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy crisis” (Timestamp: 12:22 p.m. ET).

Verdict: Mostly True.
Inflation was driven by government stimulus during COVID-19, rising energy prices, and supply chain issues. The Russia-Ukraine war also played a significant role.

CLAIM 5:
The U.S. has the “largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth” (Timestamp: 12:23 p.m. ET).

Verdict: Lacks Context.
While the U.S. leads in oil production and total supply, countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have the largest proven crude oil reserves.

CLAIM 6:
“China is operating the Panama Canal” (Timestamp: 12:32 p.m. ET).

Verdict: False.
The Panama Canal is managed by the Panamanian government, not China. While a Hong Kong-based company operates ports at either end, it is not controlled by the Chinese government.

CLAIM 7:
The U.S. “spent more money than ever spent on a project before” and lost 38,000 lives while building the Panama Canal (Timestamp: 12:31 p.m. ET).

Verdict: Misleading.
The U.S. spent $326 million on the canal, the most expensive public works project of its time. However, worker deaths during U.S. construction totaled around 5,600, not 38,000.

Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s inaugural speech contained a mix of accurate, misleading, and out-of-context claims. This fact-check aims to clarify these statements for better public understanding.

Claim: A January 20 post on Threads claims that President Donald Trump’s immigration plan to end birthright citizenship would cause a significant issue for Second Lady Usha Vance, stating that her citizenship would be revoked because neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

Fact: False.

Evidence: Usha Vance is a U.S. citizen, and Trump’s executive order does not apply retroactively. The executive order explicitly states that it will only affect individuals born more than 30 days after its issuance, which means it will not impact people like Usha Vance, who were born prior to that date.

The Birthright Citizenship Plan: For over 150 years, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has granted citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, President Trump’s executive order aims to reinterpret this amendment. According to Trump, U.S. citizenship should only apply to children born in the country who are also “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., meaning that children born to parents who are not in the country legally would not automatically receive citizenship.

Impact on Usha Vance: Usha Vance, born in San Diego 39 years ago, is unaffected by this order. The executive order is not retroactive and only applies to those born after the order’s effective date, February 19. Since Usha was born before that date, she remains a U.S. citizen, regardless of her parents’ status.

The Details of the Executive Order:

• The order’s provisions would apply only to children born more than 30 days after January 20, 2025.
• If the order is upheld, children born after February 19, 2025, would not automatically become U.S. citizens if:
  • Their mother is unlawfully present in the U.S. and their father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
  • Their mother is temporarily in the U.S. lawfully, and their father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Conclusion: Usha Vance’s citizenship is not impacted by President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The claim that her citizenship will be revoked is false. The order’s effects are prospective, not retroactive, and apply only to children born after the order’s effective date.