Published: October 13, 2025, 22:35 EDT

At a recent White House roundtable, former U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his administration portrayed Portland, Oregon, as a violent city dominated by “antifa thugs.” However, verified reports and court documents reveal a much less extreme reality — one marked by isolated protests, occasional disturbances, and a largely normal city life outside limited protest zones.

Protests at Portland’s Federal Facility

Trump’s statement that “antifa thugs” have repeatedly attacked federal property in Portland misrepresents the nature and scale of recent demonstrations.
According to police records and court filings, protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building have taken place intermittently for several months. While tensions did escalate in June — prompting one riot declaration — participation in the weeks leading up to the federal deployment of the National Guard rarely exceeded a few dozen individuals.

Daytime gatherings often included immigration advocates, older residents, and families distributing “know your rights” flyers. Nighttime demonstrations sometimes saw small groups shouting at law enforcement through megaphones.

Experts note that “antifa” is not a single organization but a broad label for decentralized left-wing activist groups opposing fascism and white nationalism. Despite the administration’s rhetoric, evidence of coordinated militant activity remains limited.

Damage and Arrests: Context and Scale

Court documents indicate the ICE facility sustained property damage — including broken windows, vandalized gates, and disabled security cameras — prompting a three-week closure in early summer.
Between June and September, Portland police arrested at least 45 individuals connected to protest-related offenses, while federal prosecutors charged 31 with crimes such as assaulting federal officers.

These figures, though serious, do not reflect a citywide breakdown. Most arrests occurred during concentrated incidents around the ICE site rather than across Portland’s neighborhoods or downtown business areas.

Fires and Violence Claims Overstated

Trump’s assertion that “Portland is on fire” is also contradicted by official reports.
Records from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and local police show that only a handful of small fires have occurred — typically short-lived and quickly extinguished.
In June, one protester lit a flare against a security gate, while another set fire to a prop guillotine on Labor Day. Videos from October showed an American flag briefly burning before a conservative influencer stomped it out.

Though these images circulated widely online, they represent isolated acts rather than widespread arson. A satirical website, isportlandburning.com, even tracks live camera feeds showing the city’s calm streets, mocking exaggerated media claims.

Retail and Infrastructure: Misleading Comparisons

Trump’s claim that “Portland doesn’t even have sewers anymore” is false.
The city’s Bureau of Environmental Services confirms a network of over 2,500 miles of pipes, 100 pump stations, and two major treatment plants — one of the largest urban wastewater systems in the Pacific Northwest.

Local officials also reject the notion that downtown is abandoned.
Portland’s retail district now houses more than 600 active shops, with glass storefronts returning after 2020’s unrest. A report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found homicides down 51% in the first half of 2025 compared to the previous year, while foot traffic reached its highest level since the pandemic.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek stated she reminded Trump during a phone call that “responding to outdated or misleading imagery does not help communities move forward.”

Homeland Security’s “Cover-Up” Allegations

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recently claimed Portland officials were “covering up terrorism” during her visit to the city.
However, both Governor Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson disputed her remarks, affirming that while protests continue near the ICE facility, the city remains stable and open.

“There is no insurrection in Portland,” Kotek said, emphasizing that local authorities can handle occasional unrest without military intervention. Wilson added that city law enforcement continues to safeguard free expression while addressing isolated property damage.

Reality on the Ground

Daily life in Portland reflects a far more balanced picture than Trump’s depiction.
Residents continue normal activities — from shopping at farmers markets to attending schools — with little evidence of widespread violence or destruction.

Even near the protest zone, disturbances are largely confined to one block, occasionally prompting rerouted traffic or temporary closures.
Outside that area, neighborhoods, parks, and business corridors operate normally, a fact widely documented by residents using the hashtag #WarRavagedPortland to counter the administration’s narrative.

Fact Check Summary

Independent reporting, municipal data, and eyewitness accounts collectively refute Trump’s portrayal of Portland as a “war zone.”
While protests persist in limited areas, there is no evidence of citywide chaos, infrastructure collapse, or mass violence. The situation illustrates how localized unrest can be amplified into broader political narratives, often detached from verifiable reality.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump paints a grim portrait of Portland. The story on the ground is much less extreme

The post Fact Check: Donald Trump’s Claims on Portland Paint a Misleading Picture appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As immigration-related protests erupted in Los Angeles recently, a viral Craigslist ad sparked a flurry of conspiracy theories across social media — claims that the demonstrations were full of “paid protesters.” But here’s the truth: the ad was a prank, and it had nothing to do with the protests.

Let’s break it down.

The Claim:

Social media posts on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok shared screenshots of a Craigslist ad seeking “the toughest badasses in the city,” claiming it was proof that the protests in LA were staged and participants were being paid. The ad even listed wild weekly pay ranging from $6,500 to $12,500.

Some users went further, calling the demonstrations “a funded operation,” accusing Democrats of orchestrating chaos to destabilize the country and supposedly profit from federal aid in the aftermath.

But none of that is true.

The Real Story Behind the Ad:

The ad was actually part of a stunt for a new prank show called Goofcon1, co-hosted by Joey LaFleur and Logan Quiroz. LaFleur, who posted the Craigslist ad in LA’s “general labor” section, told the Associated Press that it was meant to be a bit — a joke for the podcast’s Friday episode. In fact, he posted it the day before the protests even began.

“I literally had no idea it was ever going to be connected to the riots,” LaFleur said. “It was a really weird coincidence.”

During the Goofcon1 livestream, the hosts even spoke with people who had responded to the ad — which was intentionally over-the-top and militaristic. LaFleur also posted a similar ad in Austin, Texas, but it didn’t get much attention.

How the Hoax Took Off Online:

Despite being a joke, screenshots of the ad quickly circulated online as “evidence” that protesters were being paid. One post on X claimed, “CALIFORNIA RIOT IS A FUNDED OPERATION,” garnering thousands of likes and shares. A TikTok video accusing demonstrators of being “paid agitators” also racked up over 14,000 views.

Some users even claimed the protests were “fake” and orchestrated by Democrats — all based on a prank ad.

LaFleur responded to the confusion with disbelief — and humor. On his Instagram story, he posted: “Accidentally goofed the entire nation on the latest @goofcon1.” In another post, he joked: “If I get on Newsmax, that could be funny.”

A Familiar Pattern of Misinformation:

This isn’t the first time false claims about “paid protesters” have gone viral. During the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s killing, similar conspiracy theories flooded the internet. These claims resurface anytime a major protest draws national or global attention — feeding narratives of orchestrated unrest, even when no such plot exists.

Bottom Line:

The viral Craigslist ad was never about the LA protests. It was a prank — nothing more. But it’s another reminder of how easily misinformation spreads, especially when it fits into an existing narrative of political distrust.

So next time you see an outrageous claim floating around online, take a moment to dig a little deeper. Sometimes, the “smoking gun” is just a podcast prank gone viral.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: A Craigslist ad is not proof of paid protesters in LA. It was posted as a prank

The post Viral Craigslist Ad About ‘Tough Dudes’ Had Nothing to Do With LA Protests appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As tensions heat up between the Trump administration and Harvard University—one of the most prestigious and oldest universities in the U.S.—President Donald Trump recently made a claim about Harvard’s math curriculum that just doesn’t hold water.

During a swearing-in ceremony at the White House, Trump criticized Harvard, saying the university is now offering “remedial mathematics” courses covering basics like “two plus two is four,” and questioned how students who supposedly struggle with such simple math could have even gotten into Harvard in the first place.

Let’s break down what’s really going on.

The Claim:

“Harvard announced two weeks ago that they’re going to teach remedial mathematics, remedial, meaning they’re going to teach low grade mathematics like two plus two is four. How did these people get into Harvard? If they can’t, if they can’t do basic mathematics, how did they do it?”

The Facts:

Simply put, Harvard does not offer any remedial math class that teaches basic arithmetic like addition or subtraction. What Trump seems to be referring to is a new course format called Mathematics MA5, which launched in fall 2024—not a remedial course, but an enhanced version of Harvard’s introductory freshman calculus class.

James Chisholm, spokesperson for Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, clarified, “Harvard College does not offer any so-called remedial math classes. Math MA5 is a college-level calculus course. It’s just a new format of Math MA, the introductory calculus course that has been taught at Harvard for decades.”

The main difference? MA5 meets five days a week instead of three, providing extra support. However, the homework, exams, and grading for both courses are exactly the same. Both classes serve as prerequisites for more advanced math studies.

Why the Extra Support?

According to Harvard’s Director of Introductory Math, Brendan Kelly, the MA5 course was designed to help students who may have lost some foundational algebra skills due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The extra sessions focus on reinforcing algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning skills, rather than teaching elementary arithmetic.

What About Harvard Extension School?

Some confusion may come from Harvard Extension School, a separate program aimed at adult learners and continuing education students. This school offers precalculus and other courses, but it is completely separate from Harvard College—the undergraduate program with highly competitive admissions.

James Chisholm emphasized, “Harvard Extension School is 100% distinct from Harvard College and the two have nothing to do with each other in terms of curriculum or students.”

Supporting Students with Additional Needs

Harvard also runs programs like the Rising Scholars Program and Emerging Scholars Program, which provide extra academic support to select incoming and current students who come from high schools with limited advanced coursework opportunities. These programs aim to address long-standing inequalities in K-12 math and science education and are not about teaching basic arithmetic to students who can’t do math.

The Reality of Harvard Admissions

Let’s put this in perspective: the median math SAT score for Harvard’s most recent entering class was an impressive 790 out of 800. The average ACT math score was 35 out of 36, with a median high school GPA of 4.2.

Brian Taylor of Ivy Coach, a college counseling service, sums it up best: “There is no university in America as difficult to get into as Harvard—no matter your background. President Trump’s math here simply doesn’t add up.”

Bottom Line

While Harvard continues to provide support to ensure all students are ready for rigorous college-level math, it does not teach remedial arithmetic to undergraduates. The claim that Harvard is offering “low grade” math like basic addition is not just inaccurate—it’s misleading.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump’s claims about remedial math at Harvard don’t add up

The post The Truth Behind Harvard’s Math Courses and Trump’s Misleading Statement appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he made a striking claim on Truth Social: that the United States is the only country in the world that grants citizenship simply by being born on its soil.

This claim is false.

Back on January 20, the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or only temporarily. However, lower courts quickly blocked this order nationwide, and the administration is now appealing these decisions, challenging the authority of judges to issue such broad injunctions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the executive order itself is constitutional.

Let’s break down the facts.

Trump’s Claim vs. Reality

On Truth Social, Trump said:
“The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”

But the truth is quite different.

According to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress, about 30 countries worldwide offer unconditional birthright citizenship, including Canada, Mexico, and many nations in Africa and Asia. The U.S. is far from unique in this regard.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules differ from those in the U.S.”

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is based on the principle of jus soli — Latin for “right of the soil.” It means that anyone born within a country’s borders automatically gains citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This contrasts with jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” where citizenship depends on the nationality of one’s parents or ancestors.

In the U.S., birthright citizenship is nearly unconditional. Children born on American soil are citizens, except for two narrow exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy soldiers occupying the country during wartime. Historically, Native Americans were excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

A Historical Foundation

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This Citizenship Clause overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that Black people — enslaved or free — could not be citizens. It was a monumental shift in American history, affirming citizenship rights regardless of race or parentage (with the limited exceptions noted).

Trump’s Executive Order Faces Legal Hurdles

Trump’s executive order attempts to restrict birthright citizenship in a way that conflicts with longstanding Supreme Court precedent, notably a decision from 1898 that confirmed the Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all born on U.S. soil except in very specific, rare cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering this case alongside other immigration-related appeals brought by the Trump administration.

What This Means

The U.S. is not unique in offering birthright citizenship — many countries around the world have similar policies. The ongoing legal battle will determine whether Trump’s effort to limit this constitutional right can move forward, but the claim that the U.S. stands alone on this issue is simply wrong.

As the debate unfolds, understanding the history and facts behind birthright citizenship helps cut through the political rhetoric and misinformation.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

The post Trump’s Claim That Only the U.S. Has Birthright Citizenship Is False appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

By [Your Name] | Updated June 2, 2025

At a White House event on Monday, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at lowering prescription drug prices in the U.S.—but not without making a controversial claim. According to Trump, other countries are the reason Americans pay more for their medications.

“We were subsidizing others’ healthcare,” Trump said. “They pay a small fraction for the same drug. The European Union has been brutal. But we’re not going to tolerate profiteering and price gouging anymore.”

It’s a powerful statement, but experts say the facts simply don’t support it.

THE CLAIM:

Trump argues that the U.S. is essentially “subsidizing” cheaper drug prices in countries like those in the EU by paying many times more for the same medications.

THE FACTS: It’s a U.S. System Problem, Not a Foreign One

Yes, Americans pay more for prescription drugs. In fact, much more.

A 2024 RAND Corporation report found that U.S. drug prices were, on average, 2.78 times higher than those in 33 other high-income countries. Brand-name drugs account for most of the gap. The U.S. represented a massive 62% of global drug sales—but only 24% of actual drug volume.

So why the huge difference? Experts say it’s not because other countries are exploiting the U.S., but because of how America’s fragmented pricing system works.

“There are structural differences in the way that we price drugs in the United States,” said Mariana Socal, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins. “Those differences are what drive the price gap.”

How Drug Pricing Works in the U.S. vs. Abroad

In most countries, a single national agency negotiates drug prices on behalf of everyone. That gives them enormous leverage. In the U.S., by contrast, pricing is negotiated separately by dozens of private insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—a setup that weakens bargaining power and drives up costs.

“Anything that increases negotiating power—like covering more people—puts downward pressure on prices,” explained Courtney Yarbrough, a health policy professor at Emory University.

This isn’t new. It’s the reason drug companies often push higher prices in the U.S. while accepting lower profits elsewhere. A smaller margin overseas is better than no access at all.

What Does Trump’s Executive Order Actually Do?

Trump’s order sets a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to voluntarily lower prices in the U.S. If they don’t, a new “most favored nation” pricing rule would be drafted, tying U.S. drug prices to the lowest prices in similarly developed countries.

It sounds tough, but it’s unclear how much it will affect people with private insurance, since the federal government’s control mainly extends to Medicare and Medicaid.

And no—if U.S. prices drop, other countries won’t automatically start paying more. Experts say those countries may instead cut quiet deals or negotiate steeper discounts behind closed doors.

“We’re not in a static global pharmaceutical market,” Yarbrough added.

Why Drug Prices Stay High: It’s Not Just About Foreign Nations

The real story behind high drug prices in the U.S. has more to do with corporate incentives and market exclusivity. Manufacturers, PBMs, and wholesalers all benefit financially from higher list prices. Many companies also use patents strategically to delay cheaper generics from entering the market.

“There are no saints in this industry,” said Geoffrey Joyce, health policy director at USC’s Schaeffer Center. “Everyone makes more money off of higher list prices, so they keep pushing them up.”

While Trump threatened investigations into Big Pharma at the same press event, he also offered a surprisingly friendly defense of the industry—blaming other nations for their pricing tactics instead.

BOTTOM LINE:

The U.S. isn’t subsidizing other countries’ healthcare. Americans pay more for prescription drugs largely because of how the U.S. market is structured, not because of any unfair pressure from Europe or elsewhere. Trump’s executive order may aim to tackle the issue, but blaming other countries misses the mark.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump blames other countries for high US drug prices. Experts say it’s not their fault

The post Fact Check: Are Other Countries to Blame for U.S. Drug Prices? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Claim: President Donald Trump recently claimed the United States “subsidizes Canada to the tune of maybe $200 billion a year.”
Reality: That number doesn’t hold up to scrutiny — and calling it a “subsidy” misses the mark entirely.

What’s This About?

During a recent White House meeting with newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, President Trump revived a familiar talking point — that the U.S. is pouring money into Canada, allegedly in the form of military protection and trade imbalances.

“It’s hard to justify subsidizing Canada to the tune of maybe $200 billion a year,” Trump said. “We protect Canada militarily… But why are we subsidizing Canada $200 billion a year or whatever the number might be?”

So let’s unpack that. Does the U.S. actually give Canada anything close to $200 billion annually? Short answer: No. Not even close.

Where Did the Number Come From?

The White House says the $200 billion claim loosely stems from two things:

1. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada
2. U.S. military spending, particularly on NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command)

Let’s break these down.

The Trade Deficit ≠ Subsidy

According to U.S. government data:

• The 2024 trade deficit with Canada (goods and services combined) was about $35.7 billion.
• If you look only at goods, that number ranges higher — $63.3 billion to $70.6 billion.
• The White House estimate? Around $53.5 billion, which matches 2022 figures.

But here’s the issue: A trade deficit is not a subsidy.

“That’s never been the definition of a subsidy,” says Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “A subsidy is a gift without compensation.”

Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti of the Brookings Institution adds that trade deficits reflect different national demands and economic specializations — not handouts.

Military Spending: Not a One-Way Street

The second part of the claim revolves around defense spending.

In 2024:

• Canada spent $29.3 billion on defense (about 1.3% of GDP).
• The U.S., by comparison, spent a whopping $997 billion, or 3.4% of its GDP — well above the NATO-recommended 2% benchmark.

True, Canada falls short of NATO’s target, and yes, Trump has repeatedly called out allies for that. But does that shortfall mean the U.S. is “subsidizing” Canada?

Not exactly, says Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

“No, they don’t owe us that money, but they aren’t paying their fair share, and that’s a fair criticism.”

To put it into perspective:

• If Canada were to meet the 2% NATO guideline, it would need to spend around $44.8 billion — meaning it currently underspends by about $15.5 billion.
• Add that to the trade deficit, and you still only reach about $51 billion — a far cry from $200 billion.

Even using the highest goods-only deficit, the total doesn’t exceed $86 billion.

What About NORAD?

NORAD — the U.S.-Canada joint air defense initiative — often comes up in these discussions.

The U.S. does cover about 60% of NORAD costs, based on a 1985 cost-sharing agreement. But actual spending details aren’t public, making the full picture unclear.

Canada has committed significant NORAD investments:

• $4.9 billion USD over 6 years
• $27.7 billion USD over 20 years (on an accrual basis)

Defense economists Binyam Solomon and Ross Fetterly published a 2023 paper analyzing NORAD’s cost-sharing. Here’s what they found:

• The U.S. shoulders roughly 97.6% of North American defense costs but receives 64% of the benefits.
• Canada contributes about 2%, but still benefits from 36% of the security umbrella.
• Adjusting for geographical vulnerabilities flips that benefit distribution sharply in the U.S.’s favor.

In other words, the U.S. may spend more — but it’s also protecting itself.

“Even if the Canadians pulled out, we’d have to have something like [NORAD] in place,” Cancian notes. “So I would not consider that a subsidy at all. Canadians can make a fair argument that we owe them.”

Bottom Line

No, the U.S. does not subsidize Canada by $200 billion a year.
The number is based on a misunderstanding — or misrepresentation — of trade deficits and military cooperation.

Even using inflated estimates, you don’t get anywhere near $200 billion. More importantly, labeling trade deficits and NATO shortfalls as “subsidies” simply isn’t accurate.

Misinformation about international relationships can erode trust and mislead the public. That’s why fact-checking matters — especially when the numbers don’t add up.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US subsidizes Canada. Experts say the numbers don’t add up

The post No, the U.S. Doesn’t Subsidize Canada by $200 Billion — Here’s the Real Story appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

This week, President Donald Trump made controversial and factually inaccurate statements regarding the war in Ukraine, causing outrage among Ukrainians who have endured nearly three years of fighting against a much larger Russian military. Trump claimed that Ukraine started the war, among other assertions, prompting backlash from Ukraine’s leadership and the international community.

Trump’s Claim: “Ukraine Started the War”

What Trump Said:
“You’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it… You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

The Facts:
The war in Ukraine didn’t begin with Ukraine’s actions, as Trump suggested. The conflict started in 2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin illegally annexed Crimea and fueled an armed rebellion in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. These actions were driven by Russia’s desire to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence and prevent its potential integration with Western institutions, including NATO.

In 2022, Russia escalated the conflict by launching a full-scale invasion on February 24. Putin falsely claimed that the invasion was necessary to protect Russian-speaking civilians in Ukraine and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. This claim has been widely debunked, and the invasion marked a clear act of aggression by Russia, not a response to Ukrainian actions.

Trump’s Claim: “Ukraine Should Hold Elections”

What Trump Said:
“We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law… A dictator without elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.”

The Facts:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was democratically elected in 2019, with elections scheduled for spring 2024. While martial law does prohibit elections, it is a legal measure taken due to the ongoing war, which has displaced millions and made organizing elections difficult. The Ukrainian government argues that holding elections during total war would undermine national security, with challenges like the inability of millions of refugees to vote, the diversion of soldiers from the front lines, and the risk of Russian interference.

Additionally, large swathes of Ukrainian territory are under Russian occupation, making a fair and secure election impossible in those areas.

Trump’s Claim: “Zelenskyy’s Approval Rating Is at 4%”

What Trump Said:
“The leader in Ukraine… he’s down at 4% approval rating.”

The Facts:
Trump’s claim about Zelenskyy’s approval rating is false. According to a recent report by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Zelenskyy has an approval rating of approximately 57%. Zelenskyy responded to Trump’s comments, accusing him of spreading disinformation and aligning with Russia’s narrative about the conflict. He also said he would commission a new poll to further dispel these false claims.

Trump’s Claim: “Millions of People Have Been Killed”

What Trump Said:
“When you see what’s taken place in Ukraine with millions of people killed… a big percentage of their cities knocked down to the ground, I don’t know how anybody even lives there.”

The Facts:
Trump’s statement about “millions” of people being killed is grossly exaggerated. While the war has resulted in significant casualties, the numbers are nowhere near the scale Trump described. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy reported earlier this month that over 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, with tens of thousands of civilians also losing their lives. However, there is no reliable source that suggests the death toll has reached anywhere near the millions.

The Russian Defense Ministry has reported over 6,000 Russian military deaths as of January 2023, though independent sources suggest the number is much higher. The human cost of the war is undeniable, but the scale of casualties remains far below Trump’s inflated estimate.

Conclusion

Trump’s recent comments on the Ukraine war are factually inaccurate and align with disinformation often spread by Russia. Ukraine’s struggle is rooted in defending its sovereignty against an unjustified and violent invasion by Russia, not in provoking a conflict. Zelenskyy’s leadership, despite the challenges of war, remains strong with a majority of Ukrainians still supporting him. The war continues to cause tremendous loss of life and displacement, but the numbers Trump cited are far from reality.

Source

The post Trump’s False Claims About Ukraine’s Role in the War: What You Need to Know appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Comedian Katt Williams has often shared a story about joining the U.S. Marine Corps as a teenager, claiming he passed boot camp but was dismissed when officials learned he was still a minor. However, the U.S. Marine Corps has no record of Williams ever enlisting or attending Marine boot camp.

The Emmy-winning actor and stand-up comic has made these claims publicly for years, including in interviews, video blogs, and during his stand-up routines. These stories, while not tied to his comedy material, have become part of his personal narrative. Williams’ assertion of military service has been heard by millions, but the Marine Corps has told CBS News that no records support his story.

Williams first spoke about his alleged Marine experience as far back as 2016. In interviews on popular platforms like ESPN’s “First Take” and Marc Maron’s podcast, Williams described a tale where he lied about his age to join the Marines and made it through boot camp. He even claimed there was a ceremony when it was revealed he was too young for service.

On Maron’s podcast, Williams said: “I attempt to join the Marine Corps, and I go off to boot camp and I pass. Then they reveal that I’m too young, and they give me a little ceremony.” He also clarified that he wasn’t even 16 when he completed the training.

In a lengthy interview with Shannon Sharpe on his podcast “Club Shay Shay,” which garnered more than 83 million views, Williams expanded on the story, saying he miscalculated his age but still managed to pass the boot camp. Despite being a minor, he says the Marines treated him with respect and gave him a ceremony for completing the training.

However, when CBS News requested information on Williams’ supposed Marine Corps service, the U.S. Marine Corps responded by saying they found no records of him enlisting, attending boot camp, or being discharged. Military officials explained that if Williams had truly enlisted, there would be records of his entry, training, and discharge, even if he had fraudulently joined as a minor.

Anthony Anderson, an Army veteran and founder of the social media site “Guardians of Valor,” criticized Williams’ claims, calling them disrespectful to those who have genuinely earned the title of Marine. Anderson emphasized that completing Marine boot camp is no easy feat, noting that “people have died in training” in the pursuit of becoming a Marine.

Williams’ claims of Marine service appear to have begun during his 2016 public feud with comedian Kevin Hart, where Williams made a reference to his alleged time in the Marines during a heated moment. That same year, Williams was involved in a physical altercation with a teenager in Georgia, and during his stand-up routine, he again referred to himself as a Marine, even boasting about his boot camp success.

Despite the lack of evidence supporting his story, Williams continues to reference his claimed military experience in interviews and on stage, with no official response from him to address the Marine Corps’ findings.

Source

The post Katt Williams Says He Passed Marine Boot Camp—But the Marines Disagree appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.