Latest news with #TheDispatchFactCheck
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Assessing Trump's Claims About Genocide and Land Confiscation in South Africa
On May 12, 59 white South Africans arrived at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C., the first batch of Afrikaners granted refugee status by the Trump administration. In a press conference at the White House later that day, President Donald Trump claimed that a 'genocide is taking place' in South Africa and that 'land is being confiscated' from white landowners. 'It's a genocide that's taking place, that you people don't wanna write about,' Trump said. 'But it's a terrible thing that's taking place. And farmers are being killed. They happen to be white, but whether they're white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed, and their land is being confiscated in South Africa.' There is no ongoing genocide occurring in South Africa. And while the government did enact a law last year allowing for the confiscation of land without compensation, no property has been seized under its authority. When asked why the president believes the current situation in South Africa constitutes a genocide, a White House administration official told The Dispatch Fact Check, 'The 59 Afrikaner refugees who arrived in the United States have told us harrowing stories of discrimination and persecution in South Africa—violent attacks; vandalism of property; death threats; racial slurs against farmers; massive mobs singing songs calling for the death of Afrikaners; and laws that prevent many from finding work. And a government that, at a minimum, does not respond.' The United Nations defines genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,' such as murdering and causing severe physical or mental harm to individuals of that group, 'deliberately inflicting' conditions on the group threatening their survival, measures designed to prevent new births in the group, and forcibly taking away the group's children. While homicide rates in South Africa are alarmingly high and have steadily increased over the last decade, there is no evidence suggesting Afrikaners—white South Africans of Dutch descent—are victims at higher rates than black South Africans or any other racial group. The South African government does not collect or publish crime data that includes the race of the victim, making potential racial discrepancies in crime reporting difficult to decipher. However, one government department, Statistics South Africa, published a survey in August 2024 that asked South African residents for information, including their race and whether they had been victims of a crime. The largest racial disparity occurred among victims whose homes were deliberately damaged, with such incidents reported by 1.3 percent of white South Africans and 0.4 percent of black South Africans. In other categories, 6.7 percent of white South Africans said they were victims of a housebreaking versus 5.7 percent of black South Africans, 3.4 percent of white South Africans experienced theft of private property in comparison to 3.1 percent of black South Africans, and 1.1 percent of both racial categories were victims of a home robbery. The survey added that because so few households reported having any murder victims, it did not have a large enough sample size to provide accurate estimates representative of the broader population. Violent crime in South Africa, particularly homicide, has become a persistent cause of concern. In 2022, the last year for which homicide statistics are reported for South Africa on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's online database, there were a total of 27,272 homicides in the country. That's about 43.72 homicides per 100,000, the second-highest per capita homicide rate of any country to publicly release crime data, behind only Jamaica, and nearly seven times the per-capita rate in the U.S. for 2022. Data suggests that the bulk of the crime occurs in several concentrated, urban areas. Still, the South African countryside is not free from violent crime. In 2024, there were a total of 436 murders and 328 attempted murders that occurred on farms, agricultural plots, and small land holdings, according to South Africa's crime reports. Only a subset of these murder victims were killed on farms located in rural communities, as defined by government officials. In 2024, 44 people were killed on farmland in rural communities, at least 24 of whom were farmers or farm-dwellers, as opposed to workers, security officers, or visitors. Dating back to January 2022, 161 South Africans have been killed in rural communities. Trump's claim that genocide is occurring in South Africa is not supported by the facts. Neither is his assertion that white South Africans are having their land confiscated. South Africa's government has undertaken efforts to increase land ownership among black South Africans who, before 1994, faced outright discrimination under the state's apartheid system and were not permitted to collectively own more than 13 percent of the country's land. Many black South Africans were forcibly relocated away from their land under apartheid rule. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa's government has primarily relied on 'willing buyer, willing seller' land reforms, where the government purchases land from willing white South African owners at a negotiated price, which it then sells or leases to black South Africans. A government-commissioned land audit in November 2017 showed that white South Africans—representing about 7.3 percent of the country's population, per a 2022 census—collectively owned about 72 percent of the country's privately held land. In comparison, black South Africans collectively owned 4 percent of privately held land, per the audit, despite comprising 81.4 percent of the population. This has prompted some in South Africa's government to argue that drastic reforms are needed to achieve more substantial progress in righting past wrongs. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2024 signed into law a revised expropriation act, allowing the government to seize ownership of a property 'for a public purpose or in the public interest'—including race-based land reform—with no compensation in cases the government deems 'just and equitable.' Critically, the statute does not provide a framework for what is considered 'just and equitable,' though government officials have suggested it will target only land not currently being used. Trump has publicly attacked South Africa's alleged land seizure scheme in the past, characterizing it in early February as a 'massive Human Rights VIOLATION.' In response, Ramaphosa stated on social media, 'The South African government has not confiscated any land. The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution.' It's true that South Africa has not seized any land without compensation, but as a Voice of America news article noted at the time, Ramaphosa was incorrect when he said the expropriation law is 'not a confiscation instrument.' Indeed, the statute itself defines 'expropriating authority' as state efforts 'to bring about the compulsory acquisition of property … for a public purpose or in the public interest.' By making it legal for the government to acquire property when considered 'just and equitable' and in the public interest, the law serves as both a 'confiscation instrument' and a 'constitutionally mandated legal process.' In April 2018, a dispute arose when the government ordered the expropriation of two properties owned by the company Akkerland Boerdery, which it used as a hunting reserve. As this was prior to the 2024 expropriation law, the government was still required to pay a 'just and equitable' compensation—terms the statute again does not define, and not necessarily based on fair market value. The government offered 20 million South African rand (about $1.1 million), but the Akkerland Boerdery owners said the property was worth 10 times that amount. Ultimately, Akkerland Boedery successfully challenged the expropriation in South African court, and later sold the properties to a private mining firm, MC Mining, for R 80.5 million (about $4.5 million).
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No, a Judge Is Not Preventing Trump From Enforcing Election Law
Federal and state law have long prohibited noncitizens from voting in U.S. federal elections. Nonetheless, in a March 25 executive order seeking to tighten election security laws, President Donald Trump included a provision requiring that prospective voters show proof of citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections. On April 24, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly temporarily blocked the provision, ruling that the president likely 'lacks the authority' to unilaterally impose the nationwide requirement. Later that day, White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser Stephen Miller claimed that Kollar-Kotelly's ruling barred the Trump administration from enforcing laws that make it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. 'It is a CRIME for non-citizens to vote but a single federal judge says President Trump cannot enforce this law,' Miller tweeted. 'An act of pure sabotage against citizenry and democracy.' That is not what Kollar-Kotelly ruled. The president can use executive authority to enforce federal bans on noncitizen voting, but as Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion, that doesn't permit the president to issue new regulations—without congressional approval—dictating how states conduct elections. When asked to clarify Miller's tweet—and explain why he said the ruling prevents Trump from enforcing laws against noncitizen voting—Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, told The Dispatch Fact Check, 'President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship.' As an explainer from the Migration Policy Institute lays out, all states had banned noncitizens from voting by 1924, and Congress added penalties in 1996. Noncitizens face potential federal prison sentences just for registering to vote. Kollar-Kotelly's ruling did not stipulate that the president or his Justice Department 'cannot enforce this law,' as Miller claimed. Rather, her ruling merely paused a separate provision, requiring proof of documentary citizenship to vote, included in Trump's executive order. According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's executive order 'strengthens voter citizenship verification and bans foreign nationals from interfering in U.S. elections.' One provision of this order, Section 2(a), states that an independent, bipartisan agency—the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—will oversee that states implement documentary proof of citizenship requirements. 'Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form … documentary proof of United States citizenship.' Under what authority can the president make such a move? The White House cited two statutory laws: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help American Voters Act of 2002 (HAVA). NVRA, which took effect in 1995, established a uniform federal voter registration form for all 50 states. The legislation tasked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with developing the federal form, created in part to avoid disparities among each state's voter registration process. In 2002, Congress through HAVA took that responsibility away from the FEC and transferred it to a new agency the legislation created, the EAC. For a change in the federal voter registration to be approved, three of the EAC's four commissioners would have to sign on. More than a dozen groups—10 nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations, plus four groups affiliated with the Democratic party—along with Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, sued the Trump administration on April 1 and argued the president overstepped the bounds of executive authority. Their core legal claim: neither NVRA or HAVA authorizes the president to require that the EAC implement documentary proof of citizenship qualifications, and the Constitution gives the president no authority to dictate state election processes. Kollar-Kotelly ruled in a 120-page opinion that 'this separation-of-powers argument is substantially likely to succeed on the merits,' and issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the documentary proof of citizenship requirements from taking effect until the court rules on the broader merits of the case. The Trump administration presented two primary arguments countering the legal challenge brought before them. For starters, the White House argued, the president's order didn't instruct or require the EAC to implement the documentary proof of citizenship—rather, it was a mere suggestion. In the administration's view, the EAC was free to adopt or reject that suggestion, making any legal challenge speculative and bound to fail on the merits. The administration also argued that the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the law, including the security of federal elections. Therefore, in creating documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements, Trump was fulfilling his constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Kollar-Kotelly found neither of the administration's arguments compelling. 'First, the President has no constitutional duty to prescribe the content of election regulations,' she ruled. 'Second, any restriction on the President's ability to set the content of election regulation does not impair his ability to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' To begin, she rejects the White House's premise that the executive order made no clear requirements, and that any changes were merely speculative. 'This account cannot be squared with the plain text of the Executive Order,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. 'In short, there is no mystery about what Section 2(a) purports to require or whether Section 2(a) purports to require it.' The second argument presented by the administration resembles Miller's assertion: the law stipulates that noncitizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the president has a duty to uphold that law, so Trump has 'plenary authority' to direct the EAC to 'enforce the law' by updating voter registration processes. Kollar-Kotelly rejected this argument for two reasons. The first is that the administration first presented this argument at oral hearings. Yet, unless there are 'exceptional circumstances,' arguments that are not included in legal briefs and not mentioned until oral arguments are 'forfeited.' 'The Court could end its analysis of this argument there,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. But, she explained, even ignoring that legal technicality, the administration's reasoning is still lacking. The president's authority to enforce the law does not vest him with lawmaking authority, she noted. In fact, when Congress criminalized noncitizen voting in federal elections, it specified how it expected the executive to enforce the law—through prosecution, not new laws. Trump 'has no constitutional duty to set regulations unless instructed to do so by Congress,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. Moreover, Congress did not create the EAC to be used as a law-enforcing tool available at the president's disposal. 'The President has no constitutional power over election regulation that would support this unilateral exercise of authority,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. 'The Constitution vests that power in the States and Congress alone.' While it's true that Congress did authorize the EAC to oversee a uniform federal form for all 50 states to follow in NVRA and HAVA, neither piece of legislation extended such authority to the president. 'Critically, Congress has never assigned any responsibility for the content of the Federal Form to the President or to any other individual in the Executive Branch with the power to act unilaterally,' Kollar-Kotelly explained. 'The power to alter the Federal Form is—and always has been—delegated solely to a bipartisan, independent commission with a duty to make changes only 'in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.'' If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No, Maine's Governor Did Not Say She'd Refuse to Collect Federal Taxes
A viral image claims that Maine Gov. Janet Mills told Donald Trump that she would refuse to collect federal taxes if the White House cut funding to the state. 'If Donald Trump stops federal funding to Maine, we the people of Maine will take out federal taxes from all paychecks and no taxes will be paid to the federal government,' Mills supposedly said. The quote has been shared widely online, including by prominent political scientist Allan Lichtman. The quote is fabricated: Mills made no such statement. No evidence exists for the statement on Mills' social media, in online searches, or in the Maine government's official press statements, and Mills' office denies the quote's legitimacy. 'The statement is entirely false,' Ben Goodman, press secretary for Mills, told The Dispatch Fact Check. 'Further, the action described in the false statement is illegal, per the Internal Revenue Code. The governor respects the rule of law.' While Mills, a Democrat serving her second term as governor, has not threatened to withhold taxes from the federal government, she has been highly critical of the Trump administration. Last week, Trump and Mills clashed during a meeting of governors over the White House's push to restrict transgender athletes' participation in women's sports. Trump, who signed an executive order in early February rescinding funds from educational programs that do not follow the White House's guidance, called Mills out during the meeting after Maine officials said that transgender athletes would not be discriminated against in the state. 'You better do it,' Trump told Mills during the meeting. 'Because you're not getting any federal funding if you don't.' In a February 21 statement, Mills wrote that Trump's threats would not be tolerated by the state. 'If the President attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine school children of the benefit of Federal funding, my Administration and the Attorney General will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,' she said. 'The State of Maine will not be intimidated by the President's threats.' The same day, she released another statement in response to the Department of Education notifying the state that it's being investigated for alleged Title IX violations. In it, she attacked Trump for targeting Maine and said that her administration would 'defend the interests of Maine people in the court of law.' 'No President – Republican or Democrat – can withhold Federal funding authorized and appropriated by Congress and paid for by Maine taxpayers in an attempt to coerce someone into compliance with his will. It is a violation of our Constitution and of our laws, which I took an oath to uphold,' the statement reads. If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Assessing Claims That a Utah Bill Would Ban Pride Flags but Allow Nazi and Confederate Flags
Would a bill in Utah ban pride flags from being displayed at schools in the state? Viral social media posts claim that Republican state lawmakers are pushing legislation that would prohibit the symbol for gay pride while allowing Nazi and Confederate flags to be shown. 'Republican lawmakers in Utah are advancing a bill that would allow schools to fly swastika flags and Confederate flags while banning Pride flags,' reads one post. 'Utah Bill Moves To Ban Pride Flags In Schools & Government Buildings. … But Nazi & Confederate Flags Are 'Okay' For 'Educational' Use,' says another. The claim is largely true but missing context. Utah Republicans introduced a bill that would ban most flags—including pride flags—from being displayed on government property, including in schools. However, while the bill does allow Confederate and Nazi flags to be displayed temporarily when part of a school's approved curriculum, the bill's sponsor told The Dispatch Fact Check that pride flags would also be allowed under the same standards. In early January, Rep. Trevor Lee—a Republican—introduced H.B. 77 in the Utah House of Representatives and announced on Twitter that it would ban pride flags. The bill, titled 'Flag Display Amendments,' was intended to ban political flags from being displayed on government property, and 'prohibits a government entity or employee of a government entity from displaying a flag in or on the grounds of government property except certain exempted flags.' These exemptions include the U.S. flag, Utah state flag, Indian tribal flags, official flags of colleges and universities, and, in the bill's initial version, 'a historic version of a flag … that is temporarily displayed for educational purposes.' During a February 13 hearing, Lee told the committee that, in some circumstances, historical flags like the Nazi flag or Confederate flag could still be displayed as part of a school's curriculum. 'There are instances where in classrooms you have curriculum that is needed to use flags such as World War II, Civil War,' he said. 'You may have a Nazi flag. You may have a Confederate flag, and so you are allowed to display those flags for the purpose of those lesson plans.' Following criticism from the hearing, Lee amended the bill, further clarifying when flags could be displayed as part of lesson plans. The amended version of the bill read that 'a historic version of a flag,' could be displayed only 'in accordance with curriculum the [local education authority] governing board approves.' In an email to The Dispatch Fact Check, Lee confirmed that pride flags could also be displayed in schools as part of an approved lesson plan. 'You are correct,' he answered when asked whether the pride flag could, for example, be displayed during a lesson about the gay rights movement. The bill passed in a 49-20-6 vote on February 21 and was sent to the state Senate for review. If approved by its standing committee and passed by a majority of the Senate, it will be sent to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox for final approval. If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is the Ukrainian Military Selling ‘Up To Half' of Its U.S.-Provided Weapons?
Tucker Carlson claimed on a recent video podcast that Ukraine's military has been selling U.S.-provided weaponry to buyers on the black market, emphasizing repeatedly that he knew this 'for a fact.' Some of these U.S.-provided arms, Carlson asserted, have ended up in the hands of drug cartels operating near the U.S.-Mexican border. 'Fact—not guess, fact—is the Ukrainian military is selling a huge percentage, up to half, of the arms we send them,' Carlson said on The Tucker Carlson Show February 10 while interviewing retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis. 'Half. And I'm not guessing this, I know that for a fact. A fact, okay, not speculation.' Carlson continued, claiming, 'they're selling it and a lot of it is winding up with the drug cartels on our border.' He added that U.S. intelligence has been complicit in the alleged activity. 'Our intel agencies are fully aware of this, you tell me they're not profiting from this, of course. You think CIA is not profiting from this, yes, they are. Can't prove that, but I believe that,' he said. 'We're sending these arms to Ukraine, billions—hundreds of billions of dollars—and it's being stolen and sold to our actual enemies.' He implied that news organizations could verify his claims by finding such weapons for sale online. 'You know, the New York Times can get on the web and order Ukrainian weapons,' said Carlson, a former Fox News host who started a podcast after his Fox contract was terminated. 'That's a fact, I'm not guessing, that's a fact. They could do that today.' Carlson's claims lack any evidence and are likely entirely false. Both the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DOD OIG) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed that its officials have found no evidence indicating the Ukrainian military has sold U.S.-provided weapons. Mollie Halpern, a DOD OIG spokesperson, told The Dispatch Fact Check that the office 'does not have any evidence of weapons diversion.' She added, 'Our latest Operation Atlantic Resolve report does not support' the claims Carlson made on his podcast Monday. That quarterly report, released on February 11, evaluated federal oversight from October 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, and stated that DOD OIG officials 'met regularly' with Ukrainian government investigators to 'facilitate efforts to account for U.S. investments in Ukraine.' This included placing criminal investigators in Ukraine, Poland, and Germany—where weapon shipment deliveries take place—so that the U.S. government could adequately address 'allegations of fraud, corruption and potential diversion of weapons or technology.' Similarly, a GAO report issued in March 2024 evaluating the DOD's monitoring of weapon deliveries to Ukraine also found no evidence to support Carlson's claims. 'Had we found such evidence, we would have investigated these leads,' Chelsa Kenney, the GAO director of international affairs, told The Dispatch Fact Check. 'In the course of our work, we spoke with dozens of arms transfer policy experts and decisionmakers, military service officials responsible for overseeing weapons transfers for Ukraine, and individuals overseeing and executing end-use monitoring in Ukraine,' she said. 'DOD officials with whom we spoke said that there was no credible evidence of diversion of U.S.-provided advanced conventional weapons from Ukraine.' Some DOD officials the GAO interviewed were stationed in Poland at the location where most of the U.S.-provided arms are transferred to Ukrainian officials. 'Officials we spoke with in Poland said they were aware of allegations that U.S.-origin defense items had been inappropriately transferred,' Kenney said. 'However, they noted that those allegations were consistent with Russian disinformation.' Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University's Watt Family Innovation Center Media Forensics Hub, told The Dispatch Fact Check that Russian propaganda outlets have in the past amplified similar claims. For example, he pointed to a May 2023 news story from the Russian-state media outlet RT, formerly known as Russia Today, headlined, 'Weapon US gave Ukraine spotted in hands of Mexican cartel – media.' (The U.S. Justice Department in September 2024 indicted two RT employees for spending $10 million to push pro-Kremlin propaganda to U.S. audiences, a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.) The RT article highlighted video footage of what it said was a 'militant wearing the insignia of Mexico's notorious Gulf Cartel (Cartel Del Golfo, CDG),' carrying a bulky weapon RT identified as a 'US-made anti-tank missile launcher.' RT added that the Pentagon has shipped thousands of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. However, as an AP News fact check reported at the time, the anti-tank weapon featured in the video is not a Javelin but an AT4 model. Mark Hvizda, a former RAND Corporation defense expert who joined the DOD last month, told the AP that the U.S. does use AT4 anti-tank weapons. But, he added, several other countries' militaries use the weapons, which he said are 'normally produced' by a Sweden-based company. It's possible that the AT4 weapon seen carried by the cartel militant is a training model, and not an authentic weapon, as indicated by a yellow-striped band on the AT4 shown in the video. A U.S. Marine Corps weapons manual explaining the meaning of AT4 color-coding states that 'a gold or yellow band indicates a field-handling trainer,' designed to train soldiers on how to use the weapon. A diagram included in the manual shows the yellow band on the same part of the weapon as depicted in the video footage. The Dispatch Fact Check has reached out to the Tucker Carlson Network for comment. If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
