Every story ever published

The claim: “"Power in America will be down for 90 days. The only Americans who will have electricity during that time will be those who hold the United States Asset Reserve." — words put in Trump's mouth in an AI-altered video posted Nov. 6, 2026, by the Facebook and Instagram account Shythechosen under the caption "TRUMP CONFIRMS NO POWER FOR 90 DAYS"”

Why we rated it this way: The clip's footage comes from Trump's Nov. 2 remarks at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and in the White House's full video of that speech the matching moment, just after 23:21, shows him criticizing Democratic candidates before the midterms, not announcing a blackout or promoting a crypto token. The same posts push tokens called the United States Power Reserve and United States Asset Reserve, and no White House or Energy Department record announces a nationwide 90-day outage. The rumor appears to borrow from the Pentagon's separate FORTRESS initiative to let military bases run off-grid for 90 days, which is not a civilian blackout.

What would change our rating: Unedited official video or a White House or Energy Department statement in which Trump announces a nationwide 90-day power outage or endorses those tokens would overturn this verdict.

The claim: “"Three suspected Iran-backed terrorists plotted an attack on a British air base housing American troops using vans carrying barrels of fuel, according to a federal indictment unsealed Tuesday by the Justice Department (DOJ)." — Fox News, Brittany Miller, Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Justice Department says an eight-count superseding indictment unsealed Nov. 10 charges al-Saadi, Mohajeri and al-Hassani with terrorism offenses tied to the IRGC and Kata'ib Hizballah, including a September 2026 plot at RAF Fairford, where U.S. forces were stationed. It alleges al-Hassani had three vans, some later found to hold barrels of fuel, driven toward the base on Sept. 26 and that two were turned back at a roadblock. These are allegations, and the department notes the defendants are presumed innocent; Fox attributes them to the indictment.

What would change our rating: The indictment text or a court record describing different targets, defendants or vehicle contents, or a dismissal or acquittal on the Fairford counts, would change how this account should be read.

The claim: “"In a review released by the National Park Service in August, the administration acknowledged that the arch would have 'adverse' effects on as many as 42 historic sites." — CNN, Aleena Fayaz, "Kennedy family sues to block Trump's arch," Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Park Service's revised Assessment of Effects, dated Aug. 28, 2026, found the 250-foot arch would have an adverse effect on historic properties, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's summary of that assessment counts 42: six National Historic Landmarks, eight historic districts, eight cultural landscapes and 20 other properties. An earlier August draft listed 37, so the 42 comes from the revised version, which fits CNN's "as many as" wording.

What would change our rating: A later Park Service revision or the final Section 106 record giving a different count of adversely affected properties would change this verdict.

The claim: “"So it can't be a Learjet. A Learjet would take up half the bloody road. That's not taking up half the road. It is a drone or a missile." — unnamed Facebook user in a Nov. 2, 2026 video, as quoted by AAP FactCheck; the post had been viewed more than 920,000 times”

Why we rated it this way: The NTSB's investigation page identifies the aircraft as a Learjet 60 operated by Aurora Aviation (Upper Jet), lost from radar and radio contact en route from Austin to North Eleuthera, Bahamas. Its updates list recovered components from both wings, both engines, the flight deck and tail surfaces, and say the cockpit voice recorder was found at the initial impact site on Nov. 9. Nothing in the federal record points to a drone or missile; the cause is still under investigation.

What would change our rating: An NTSB preliminary or final report, or recovered wreckage, showing the object was not the registered Learjet 60, or showing a weapon struck it, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"In Trump v. United States, the case in question, the court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. The justices ruled that former presidents have no immunity from prosecution for unofficial conduct." — Robert Schmad, Fox News, Nov. 10, 2026, reporting Justice Sonia Sotomayor's wish to see the ruling overturned”

Why we rated it this way: The Court's syllabus holds that a former president is entitled to "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," "at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," and that "There is no immunity for unofficial acts." Fox's line that Sotomayor's dissent said the president is now a "king above the law" also matches her written dissent. Her new remarks at Mount Vernon are quoted from the event and are not checked against a transcript here.

What would change our rating: A corrected opinion, a later Supreme Court ruling narrowing or overruling Trump v. United States, or a transcript showing Fox misdescribed the holding would move this verdict.

The claim: “"He failed to win the speakership when he topped out at 200 votes – shy of the 218 required – and the conference removed him as its nominee, eventually landing on now-Speaker Mike Johnson." — Aaron Blake, CNN analysis, "Jim Jordan's long, fraught path to lead the House GOP," live updates, Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Clerk's roll calls show Jordan received 200 votes on the first speaker ballot on Oct. 17, 2023, then 199 and 194, so "topped out at 200" is right. But with vacancies and absences, a majority of votes cast for a named candidate was 217 on the first two ballots (432 and 433 votes) and 215 on the third (429), not a fixed 218. Jordan fell short either way, so the error does not change CNN's point.

What would change our rating: A House roll call showing 436 or more votes cast for named candidates on any of Jordan's ballots, which would make 218 the threshold, would move this verdict to Matches record.

The claim: “"Abdul El Sayed has failed the background check required for classified Senate briefings. The denial blocks him from any session that involves sensitive national security information." — X account @TrumpNews_Baby (posting as "Jonathan Gregory"), Nov. 8, 2026, in a wire-style post viewed about 2.7 million times”

Why we rated it this way: Section 3163 says the classified-access subchapter "shall not apply to the President and Vice President, Members of the Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Federal judges," and the Congressional Research Service's clearance FAQ (R43216) says security clearances "are not mandated" for members of Congress, who are deemed eligible by virtue of their office. There is no background check a senator-elect sits for, so there is none to fail. The post cites only unnamed "officials who conduct the clearances," and no Senate, agency or press record shows any denial.

What would change our rating: A Senate, Office of Senate Security or intelligence-agency document showing El-Sayed was reviewed and barred from classified briefings, or a change in law requiring clearances for members of Congress, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Following investigations, France is now in a position to attribute these destructive actions to Iran: they were carried out by SHAHID KAVEH, an offensive cyber unit affiliated with the Electronic Warfare and Cyber Defense Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps," the ministry continued. — Greg Norman-Diamond, Fox News Digital live updates, Nov. 10, 2026, reporting that France's foreign ministry said Oct. 11-12 attacks hit the refrigeration controls of more than 700 retail sites”

Why we rated it this way: The ministry's Nov. 10 statement says that in the night of Oct. 11 to 12 attacks hit the supermarket refrigeration controls of more than 700 retail sites, causing fires and food losses worth tens of millions of euros, and attributes them to SHAHID KAVEH, an IRGC-affiliated cyber unit, in the words Fox quotes. It says France "is going to summon" Iran's ambassador and will propose further EU sanctions. Fox's lead says the ministry "summoned" the ambassador, while the statement itself announces the summons as a coming step; the attribution is France's finding, and Iran has rejected it.

What would change our rating: A French government correction or withdrawal of the attribution, or a published investigation tying the Oct. 11-12 attacks to a different actor, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"A new poll released as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces possible impeachment shows 7 in 10 Americans — and even about half of Republicans — want Congress to vote to end the Iran war. ... The survey also showed that 62% of Americans — including 32% of Republicans — want Congress to pass legislation ending Trump's tariffs." — Aaron Blake, CNN analysis, live updates, Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The topline shows 71% of all adults support the new Congress "passing legislation to end the conflict with Iran," including 51% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats, and 62% support legislation to eliminate the Trump administration's tariffs, including 32% of Republicans. It also shows 33% say impeachment efforts against Trump would be good for the country and 42% bad, as CNN reports. The question asked about passing legislation, not about any specific method such as cutting funds or impeaching Hegseth, which CNN itself notes.

What would change our rating: A corrected Ipsos topline with different figures, or evidence that CNN's numbers came from a different subgroup or question than the all-adults legislation question, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Still, gas prices remain up by more than 30% since the war with Iran started on February 28, and around 40% since the beginning of the year." — Elizabeth Robinson, NBC News, "Morning Rundown," Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: EIA's weekly series puts regular gasoline at $2.937 on Feb. 23, the last reading before the war began Feb. 28, and $2.796 on Jan. 5, the first reading of 2026. Against AAA's Nov. 10 national average of $3.98, that is a rise of about 36% since the war began and about 42% since January; EIA's own latest reading, $4.153 on Nov. 2, shows even larger gains of about 41% and 49%. Either way, NBC's "more than 30%" and "around 40%" are consistent with the government record.

What would change our rating: An EIA weekly reading that falls below about $3.82 a gallon (30% above the pre-war $2.937) would make the "more than 30%" figure outdated, and a revision to EIA's January or February readings would change the comparison.

The claim: “"The justices' ruling stays a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in El Paso, who had temporarily halted border wall construction in the region designated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the Big Bend Sector while litigation proceeds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would have denied the stay request but did not file a written dissent." — Louis Casiano, Fox News, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Nov. 9 per curiam order grants the government's stay of the preliminary injunction that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered on Oct. 2, 2026, which had blocked the Homeland Security secretary's waivers and halted all construction in the Big Bend Sector. It notes only that "Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay," with no written dissent. The stay is temporary while the case continues, though the court said the government is "exceedingly likely" to win its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

What would change our rating: A later Supreme Court or district court order lifting the stay, or a docket record showing the injunction came from a different court or date, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Tuesday is the deadline for voters who cast provisional ballots because they did not have proper identification to provide the needed documentation to election officials." and "County election officials have until Friday to vet and count all provisional ballots and certify their county-level results." — Annie Grayer and Fredreka Schouten, CNN, Nov. 10, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: Miss. Code § 23-15-573 says an affidavit ballot cast without acceptable photo ID is not rejected for that reason if the voter returns to the circuit clerk within five business days after the election; counting from the Nov. 3 election, the fifth business day is Tuesday, Nov. 10. § 23-15-603 gives county election commissioners ten days after a general election to send their certified statement to the secretary of state, which lands on Friday, Nov. 13. CNN's separate Dec. 3 state certification date was not checked against this record.

What would change our rating: An amendment to § 23-15-573 or § 23-15-603, a court order extending the cure or certification window, or a Secretary of State notice setting different 2026 dates would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Charges Secretary Hegseth with continuing the Iran war after both Houses of Congress directed the removal of U.S. forces through H. Con. Res. 86." — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), press release announcing articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: Congress.gov shows the House adopted H.Con.Res. 86 on June 3, 2026, by 215 to 208 (Roll no. 199), and the Senate agreed to it without amendment on June 23 by 50 to 48 (Record Vote 184); its text directs the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress declares war or authorizes force. That matches Massie's description that both chambers directed the removal. A concurrent resolution is never sent to the president, and the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in INS v. Chadha casts doubt on whether one can legally bind the executive, so whether ignoring it is an impeachable offense is a legal argument the record itself does not settle.

What would change our rating: A congress.gov record showing either chamber did not adopt H.Con.Res. 86, or adopted a different text than the one directing removal of forces, would move this verdict; a court ruling on the resolution's legal force would bear on Massie's impeachment theory but not on the votes themselves.

The claim: “"Current federal funding levels run out on Dec. 11, and without another deal in place, Congress risks plunging the government into another shutdown." — Elizabeth Elkind and Alex Miller, Fox News Digital, "Congress returns to brutal lame-duck stretch with shutdown deadline, leadership races," Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: Congress.gov shows H.R. 6500 became Public Law 119-103 on Sept. 2, 2026, and its CRS summary says it funds federal agencies through the earlier of Dec. 11, 2026, or enactment of the regular appropriations bills. The White House's signing statement gives the same Dec. 11 end date. Fox's deadline matches the law; whether a shutdown actually follows depends on what Congress passes before then.

What would change our rating: Enactment of a new continuing resolution or full-year appropriations bills before Dec. 11, or a congress.gov record showing a different expiration date in P.L. 119-103, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"The new record — 159 women from both parties — is seven more women than currently serve in the House and Senate, according to data from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University and CNN election projections." — Aleena Fayaz, Renée Rigdon and Amy O'Kruk, CNN, "A record number of women will serve in the next Congress," Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: CAWP's Nov. 9 toplines say at least 159 women will serve in the 120th Congress, a new record over the 152 first set in 2024, and that 152 women serve now, so CNN's seven-seat gain matches. CAWP also says at least 136 women will serve in the House, a record, while Senate women will fall from 27 to at least 23, as CNN reports. Fifteen races with women are still too close to call, so 159 is a floor that could rise, and CNN's own figure of 116 House Democratic women runs one above CAWP's 115 because it adds CNN projections.

What would change our rating: Final certified results or an updated CAWP count showing fewer than 159 women elected, or a different current total than 152, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"WHEN THE STEAL IS TOO OBVIOUS AND YOU SCRAMBLE TO FIX IT!" — anonymous user on the forum "The Donald" (patriots.win), Nov. 5, 2026, sharing screenshots of an NBC News board briefly showing James Talarico at 91.9 percent in Tarrant County”

Why we rated it this way: Tarrant County's own cumulative report lists Talarico with 427,879 votes, or 58.72 percent, to Ken Paxton's 287,783, or 39.50 percent, in the U.S. Senate race, close to the 59.8 percent NBC showed after the fix and nowhere near 91.9 percent. The Associated Press told AFP that a data-entry error briefly showed Paxton with 22,403 votes in the county instead of 202,403 and was corrected within three minutes, and NBC's Steve Kornacki flagged the number as out of whack on air. A mistyped figure in a media feed that was corrected minutes later does not change any ballots, so it is not evidence that votes were stolen.

What would change our rating: A county or state canvass, audit, recount or court finding showing that the Tarrant County tally itself was wrong, or that ballots were added or removed, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"The justices' ruling stays a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in El Paso, who had temporarily halted border wall construction in the region designated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the Big Bend Sector while litigation proceeds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would have denied the stay request but did not file a written dissent." — Louis Casiano, Fox News, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Court's Nov. 9 docket entry says the government's stay application was granted, the Western District of Texas injunction in case No. 3:26-cv-01099 is stayed while the government seeks review, and "Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay," with no dissenting opinion listed. The per curiam opinion confirms the injunction was entered on Oct. 2, 2026, halting construction in the area CBP designates the Big Bend Sector. Fox's description of a temporary stay pending litigation matches the order, which ends automatically if certiorari is denied.

What would change our rating: A corrected Supreme Court order or docket showing another justice noted a dissent, a written dissent by Justice Jackson, or a different date or court for the injunction would move this verdict.

The claim: “"If the impeachment vote in the House is successful, Hegseth would be the third Cabinet secretary to be impeached." — Lauren Chadwick and Michael Williams, CNN, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The House Historian's list of every person the House has impeached includes exactly two Cabinet secretaries: Secretary of War William W. Belknap, impeached March 2, 1876, and acquitted, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, impeached Feb. 13, 2024, whose charges were dismissed without a trial. Everyone else on the list is a president, a senator or a judge, so a House vote to impeach Hegseth would make him the third. CNN's description of the Senate failing to convict Belknap and voting to end the Mayorkas case also matches the list.

What would change our rating: An official House record showing another Cabinet secretary was impeached, or the House voting down or tabling Massie's resolution, which would leave the comparison hypothetical, would change how this is graded.

The claim: “"Does anybody really believe that this 'Election' was honest. ... Some early voting 'dumps' were so large that it was impossible to win, no matter how many people went to vote. It's all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter!" — President Donald Trump, Truth Social, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The archived post confirms Trump wrote these words, but it names no state, county, race, ballot batch, vote total or voting machine, so there is nothing in it that can be checked against an official count. Results are still being finalized: Mississippi counties have until Nov. 13 to certify and Virginia certifies in early December, and no certified result or official finding cited in the post shows early votes or machines changing an outcome. The Guardian notes that last week Trump told The New York Times he was "absolutely willing" to accept the midterm results.

What would change our rating: Trump or the White House identifying specific jurisdictions and early-vote batches, or an election official, audit, recount or court finding that early-vote counts or voting machines produced wrong totals, would let this be graded as matching or contradicting the record.

The claim: “"During Trump's first term, he was impeached by the House in 2019 but was acquitted by the Senate months later. After the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the president was impeached again, but was ultimately acquitted by the Senate." — Lindsay Kornick, Fox News Digital, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: House Roll Call 695 shows the House adopted Article I of H.Res. 755 by 230 to 197 on Dec. 18, 2019, and Senate Vote 33 shows the Senate found Trump not guilty 52 to 48 on Feb. 5, 2020. House Roll Call 17 shows the House impeached him again under H.Res. 24 by 232 to 197 on Jan. 13, 2021, a week after the Capitol riot and still in his first term. Senate Vote 59 on Feb. 13, 2021 shows 57 guilty votes to 43, a majority but short of the two-thirds needed to convict, so "acquitted" is accurate even though that trial took place after he had left office.

What would change our rating: An official House or Senate record showing a different outcome for either impeachment or trial vote, such as a conviction or a vote on different dates, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Kansas on Tuesday elected a Democrat to the US Senate for the first time since the Great Depression. ... since Kansas became a state in 1861, Sen.-elect Adam Hamilton will be only the fourth Democrat to represent it in Senate history." — Alex Leeds Matthews and Zachary B. Wolf, CNN, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: The Senate's Kansas roster lists exactly three Democrats since statehood in 1861: John Martin (1893–1895), William H. Thompson (1913–1919) and George McGill (Dec. 1930–Jan. 1939), while the 1890s senators William Peffer and William Harris are listed as Populists, so Hamilton would be the fourth. McGill's service spans the Great Depression and every Kansas senator since 1939 is a Republican, which fits CNN's line, though the roster gives service dates rather than election years. Hamilton's win itself rests on CNN's projection, since Kansas has not yet certified its results.

What would change our rating: Certified Kansas results showing Hamilton did not win, or a Senate Historical Office correction listing another Democratic senator from Kansas, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"100 percent election fraud" — caption on an X post shared Nov. 4, 2026, alongside a news-style graphic showing Rep. Ilhan Omar winning Minnesota's 5th District with 99 percent of the vote, as documented by AFP Fact Check”

Why we rated it this way: The Minnesota Secretary of State's results file for the Nov. 3 election shows Omar with 262,702 of 343,507 votes in the 5th District, or 76.48 percent, against 16.23 percent for Republican John Nagel and 7.02 percent for independent DeVelle L. Jackson, so the 99 percent figure in the graphic is not in the official count. AFP reports the graphic carries an AI watermark, and the real result is a lopsided but ordinary margin of about 60 points, in line with Omar's past wins. Nothing in the state's count supports the post's fraud claim, which rests entirely on a number the record doesn't contain.

What would change our rating: A certified canvass from the Minnesota State Canvassing Board showing a result near 99 percent, or a court or election-official finding of fraud in the 5th District count, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"Current federal funding levels run out on Dec. 11, and without another deal in place, Congress risks plunging the government into another shutdown." — Elizabeth Elkind and Alex Miller, Fox News Digital, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: Section 106 of Public Law 119-103, signed Sept. 2, 2026, makes the stopgap funding available until whichever comes first: enactment of the relevant full-year bill or Dec. 11, 2026. Congress.gov's summary says the law funds most programs at fiscal 2026 levels, which matches Fox's description of "current federal funding levels." Whether a lapse actually leads to a shutdown depends on what Congress passes in the next month, which the law itself can't show.

What would change our rating: Enactment of a new continuing resolution or full-year appropriations bills that extend funding past Dec. 11, or a published correction to the law's expiration date, would move this verdict.

The claim: “"The new record — 159 women from both parties — is seven more women than currently serve in the House and Senate, according to data from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University and CNN election projections." — Aleena Fayaz, Renée Rigdon and Amy O'Kruk, CNN, Nov. 9, 2026”

Why we rated it this way: CAWP's tally, last updated Nov. 7, says at least 159 women will serve in the 120th Congress, counting 141 winners, two undecided races with women on both sides and 16 Senate holdovers, against 152 serving now, the previous record. CAWP also backs CNN's other details: at least 136 women in the House, a new record, while the Senate drops from 27 women to at least 23. CNN rounds the share to 30 percent where CAWP says at least 29.7 percent, and 15 races with women in them were still uncalled, so the final number could rise.

What would change our rating: A CAWP update or certified results showing fewer than 159 women elected, or a revised count of women currently serving other than 152, would move this verdict.