Some social media users seized on footage from the April 25 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner to investigate the shooting that disrupted the event, but using artificial intelligence to review the video caused more confusion, not less.

An unedited video from the dinner first appeared online in the hours after the shooting when President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social low-quality security footage of a person running through a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton hotel as Secret Service agents rushed behind him with guns drawn. 

Cole Tomas Allen has been charged in the incident with attempted assassination.

Others used AI to enhance the video Trump shared, and some reshared the edited version without context.

An April 26 Facebook post shared the edited footage with a caption that said, “Unedited raw security footage of the WHCD front entrance to the lobby where the suspect ran through.” 

Conservative commentator Benny Johnson, also shared the edited clip in an April 26 X post, garnering more than 2 million views. Later that day, Johnson noted in a follow-up post that the video had been enhanced with AI. 

Other X users shared the footage without specifying it had been enhanced using AI.

The edited version, first shared by X user “Seth Weathers,” was not accurate. Weathers specified that he enhanced the security footage with AI since the original quality was low. Weathers also added that the AI “made up some things to fill in the gaps.”

(Screenshot of the AI-enhanced footage highlighting irregularities with red circles)

Here are some irregularities we found while analyzing the AI-enhanced footage that are not in the original video:

• Two agents are kneeling down in front of each other while the suspect runs in the opposite direction.

• The agent standing in the middle of the frame first appears wearing a cap but it later morphs into what looks like a beanie.

• When the suspect enters the footage, his body has a big white box on top of it that disappears as he passes the security checkpoint.

• The agents’ uniforms have random letters that do not reflect a Secret Service division officer’s uniform.

• There’s a blurry black blob in the middle of the checkpoint that sometimes looks like part of the furniture, and other times looks like an agent kneeling down in a tux. 

We rate claims this video is “unedited raw security footage” from the dinner False. 

Related: Fact-checking falsehoods after shooting in hotel hosting correspondents’ dinner Trump attended

Related: Column: Why a correspondents’ dinner at a White House ballroom could endanger press freedom

The research on diet sodas has about as much clarity as a glass of Diet Coke.

Studies contradict one another. Some are funded by the beverage industry. The way they are structured can lead to different findings.

Comparisons matter, too. Are diet sodas better for your long-term health than sugary sodas? Probably, yes. But compared to water? Not so much.

Garnish that with claims about the artificial sweetener aspartame causing cancer, diet sodas being addictive, and hyper-sweet flavors affecting brain chemistry, and the health outlook on diet sodas is even more complex.

Here’s a quick guide to navigating the low-calorie beverage menu — and weaning yourself off sweet, fizzy sodas, if you’re ready.

Are diet sodas bad for your health? Studies differ

Several large-scale studies found significant associations between consuming artificially sweetened drinks — like diet sodas — and a number of health issues, including Type II diabetes, obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular issues. 

But these were observational studies, meaning scientists compare people’s health outcomes with their diets. A correlation between diet soda consumption and poor health outcomes doesn’t prove the soda caused those outcomes. 

 There could be other confounding factors. For example, maybe people who drink diet sodas do so because they are already concerned about their health. Or maybe they drink diet soda because they really like high-calorie dishes and want to offset the excess calories they get through that food. 

Plus, researchers haven’t consistently found the same negative health outcomes from artificially sweetened drinks when they do smaller and shorter-term experiments to try and establish cause and effect. 

In a 2022 systematic review, the World Health Organization examined results from 50 randomized controlled trials. Generally, the studies showed no significant health effects (positive or negative) from these non-sugar sweeteners, or very mild benefits for short-term weight loss and body mass index — particularly when compared to sugary sodas. 

Pepsi sodas are displayed for sale in New York on, Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023. Large epidemiological studies have found a correlation between diet sodas and negative health outcomes, but short-term controlled trials have not consistently proven causation. (AP)

Diet soda is a healthier option than sugary soda, but neither is best

Although the verdict on diet sodas is still out, we know that Americans consume more than recommended amounts of added sugar, and it’s harming their health.

Sugary drinks are a big part of that. A 12-ounce can of regular Coke contains about 39 grams of sugar. That’s about 10 teaspoons, more than the 9 teaspoons the American Heart Association says adult males should consume at most every day, and the recommended max of 6 teaspoons for women. 

Artificial sweeteners, meanwhile, come in smaller doses. That same 12-ounce can of Diet Coke only contains around 200 milligrams — about one-sixteenth of a teaspoon — of aspartame, which is 200 times sweeter than table sugar.

“If a patient is consuming large amounts of regular soda (more than 1 can every week or two) and the alternative is diet soda to satiate a craving for something sweet, I’ll take it,” Dr. Sarah Fishman, an endocrinologist who treats diabetes, said in an email. “But if I can convince someone to go straight from regular soda to water or seltzer, that’s always much preferred.” 

Experts we spoke with agreed: Diet soda is a better option than regular soda, but switching to water, or another unsweetened drink like tea, is best. 

In this Dec. 25, 2018, a person uses a soda fountain dispenser at the Back Bowl bowling alley in Eagle, Colorado. (AP)

Gut microbiome, metabolism, and the brain — other concerns about diet sodas

Diet sodas might have zero calories, but scientists are investigating how they may impact digestion, metabolism and brain chemistry.

Some experimental data in animals and humans shows that non-sugar sweeteners may affect the digestive system microbes that break down food, but it’s not clear yet whether those changes are harmful. 

Other researchers are exploring how peoples’ bodies react when they consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any energy to break down. Drinking a diet soda won’t raise your blood sugar or cause significant insulin release like a regular soda would, but researchers are exploring whether these sweeteners, that are often consumed alongside other carbohydrates, could affect metabolism and insulin sensitivity over the long-term. 

“There is a lot of theoretical research in this area but limited actual human studies,” Fishman said. 

Scientists have also compared MRI brain scans of people who regularly consume artificial sweeteners and those who don’t and found their brains respond differently to sugar and artificial sweeteners. The results suggest that regularly consuming these hyper-sweet beverages might make that sweet flavor feel less rewarding.

But with many chemically distinct artificial sweeteners on the market, it’s difficult to parse how each one — aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, etc. — affected the gut, brain, and metabolism. 

There are several FDA-approved artificial sweeteners on the market. Sometimes they are listed by their chemical name, but you might know their brand names like Splenda (sucralose), Sweet’N Low (saccharin) or Equal (aspartame). (AP)

Do I need to be worried about aspartame? 

If you are a regular soda drinker, you may have heard about aspartame being linked to liver cancer. In 2023, The World Health Organization categorized aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Some experts criticized the label as hinging on limited evidence, much of it from studies involving only animals. But even if you were worried, you’d have to be guzzling sodas to be in danger because the WHO set the acceptable daily intake of aspartame at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That means a 150-pound person would have to drink over 13 cans of Diet Coke a day to hit that number. 

Aspartame is the sweetener used in Diet Coke and other sodas like Diet Pepsi, and Diet Dr. Pepper. It’s also used in sugar-free chewing gum, and zero sugar pancake syrups. (AP)

If you want to quit, here are some strategies

We probably all know someone with a self-proclaimed diet soda addiction. Between caffeine and the beverage’s associations with memories or routines, sodas can often lend a sense of regulation to a person’s day.

Like anything addictive, it can be hard to quit. But Nicole Avena, a neuroscientist studying food addiction, offered these tips for people who want to try: 

• Rather than eliminating any drink, try substituting the soda with sparkling water, flavored seltzer, or unsweetened tea. 

• Gradually reduce caffeine, rather than stopping cold-turkey, to avoid withdrawal.

• Identify triggers like specific times of day, stress or fatigue that make you turn to the soda.

• Pair the new drink with something else you already like to do — preferably something that is already a habit or routine. 

• Satisfy thirst with other forms of hydration such as water so that you don’t reach for soda.

Other psychologists suggest adding obstacles between you and your habit, making it more inconvenient to maintain. Maybe store the soda in the garage so you have to go outside to get it, or stop buying soda, except when dining out. These elements of “friction” can break behavior patterns. 

Sparkling water can offer bubbly refreshment without the sweet taste. (Shutterstock) 

Graham Platner, the Maine Democrat who hopes to oust Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, has taken heat for comments he made about rape more than a decade ago. His campaign strategy emphasizes his present views, including his support for legislation to improve tracking of rape kits. 

“Our campaign played a key role in passing Representative Valli Geiger’s landmark rape kit bill in Maine,” Platner said in an April 14 X post, sharing a TV ad on the topic. (Geiger’s bill didn’t pass, but Gov. Janet Mills signed a budget in April that included rape kit tracking, which Geiger proposed in her bill.)

“Rape kits” is shorthand for sexual assault forensic evidence kits. Medical professionals collect evidence from sex assault victims’ bodies and clothing to help law enforcement investigate. Past studies and news reports showed that many rape kits remained untested in Maine.

During the past several years, states have passed laws that aim to eliminate a rape kit testing backlogs. Maine was the last state to pass such a law, according to the Joyful Heart Foundation, a group that advocates to wipe out backlogs.

Geiger narrated the Platner ad, which aired in April: “I wrote a bill to ensure rape kits are tracked to protect victims and identify perpetrators. Every year its passage was blocked. But then I told Graham Platner and the first thing he said was ‘Valli, how can I help get this bill passed?’ He campaigned on it. He spoke to hundreds of Mainers about it. He brought in an army of volunteers to call about it and the bill will soon become law.” 

Platner, an oyster farmer, veteran and political newcomer, has faced criticism about comments he made about rape on Reddit in 2013. A PAC associated with Collins aired ads about his statements.

Trailing Platner in the polls, on April 30 Mills dropped out of the Senate race, making Platner the likely nominee. David Costello, who has held government jobs in Maine and Maryland, remains on the June 9 Democratic primary ballot, but lags far behind in polling and fundraising. 

Platner’s ad has a point that past efforts had failed — Mills signed no such a bill in 2024, citing a procedural objection. But it’s hard to parse whether Platner played a “key role” in the passage; he did invite a lawmaker advocating for the legislation to speak at one of his town halls.

Maine passed a rape kit bill in 2026 after a previous effort stalled

The Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault conducted a 2018 study that recommended investing state money in its state crime lab to analyze sexual assault kits to maintain a minimal backlog. A kit’s evidence can validate a survivor’s account, the study said, and may make some more willing to participate in the justice process. The evidence also helps identify offenders.

But it took years for Maine to pass extensive legislation.

In 2024, Geiger sponsored LD2129 to require the state inventory untested rape kits and establish a statewide rape kit tracking system. It passed with unanimous support.

The bill was among 35 that Mills said legislators sent to her after they adjourned. She didn’t sign them into law, in what’s called a pocket veto. Mills wrote that even if she saw value in some of the bills, she feared a legal challenge since they were last minute.

When asked in 2024 about not signing the rape kit bill, Mills said she was working with police to improve rape kit tracking. WMTW reported that Mills was referring to a limited pilot program passed by the Legislature the previous session that had yet to be implemented.

“I feel strongly about this bill, too,” Mills said, referring to Geiger’s bill. “I feel strongly that we have to respect the rights of survivors of sexual assault, I always have taken that position.”

At the time, Geiger blamed the Legislature – not Mills – for the bill’s failure.

“She shouldn’t have had to make that kind of decision,” Geiger said of the pocket veto. “The Senate and the House failed to do the work as it’s usually done.” 

Geiger told us in an April 30 interview she stood by those comments and didn’t think it would have been a sound strategy to blame the governor. But she said she had thought that Mills, the state’s first female attorney general and district attorney, would make an exception for the rape kit bill. 

In 2025, similar legislation passed the House but wasn’t funded and didn’t reach the governor’s desk.

Platner gave Geiger a platform at a town hall

We asked Platner’s campaign for information about what he did to campaign for the bill. A spokesperson pointed to one action: Platner held a “tax the rich” town hall Jan. 6 in Portland, Maine, where he gave the stage to Democratic lawmakers, including Geiger, to promote their bills. The campaign sent us video clips of the town hall.

“We are the only state in the nation that has not passed a rape reform kit bill,” Geiger said at the event, as she recounted the bill’s 2024 demise. “Despite the fact that I know that the governor strongly supports women’s rights, she vetoed that bill.”

Platner urged the audience to call their legislators and the governor’s office.

Geiger told PolitiFact that hundreds of people attended the town hall, which drew media coverage: “I can’t tell you how many women and men said ‘I am writing the governor. I will call the governor” after listening at the town hall,” Geiger said in an interview. 

About a month after the town hall, on Feb. 4, Mills said she included in her supplemental budget proposal $267,000 for the Department of Public Safety to establish a tracking system for completed rape kits. She said it aligned with a bill in the Legislature that was not the same as Geiger’s but had some similar elements.

The funding was in the budget Mills signed into law in April requiring an inventory of untested rape kits and the establishment of a statewide tracking system. 

The night before Mills dropped out of the race, a spokesperson for her campaign sent us a statement by Rep. Holly Stover, a Democrat and appropriations committee member, and a co-sponsor of the bill that Mills cited in her budget proposal. Stover credited Mills and legislators for the passage. The Mills campaign spokesperson said in the fall of 2025, the governor informed legislative leaders that she would include rape kit funding in the supplemental budget, but the spokesperson provided no evidence to back that up.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks in the 2026 midterms including Maine 

Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature approved a new congressional map that could help the GOP flip four seats in the midterm elections. 

State Democrats say the map, put forward by Gov. Ron DeSantis, conflicts with Florida’s Fair Districts amendment prohibiting drawing districts with partisan intent. DeSantis has offered several reasons for the changes, including population growth. 

Florida House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, went further, saying after the April 29 vote that it was not only illegal on a state level, but also federal.

“Even if Fair Districts falls, you still have general principles of map drawing, and you still have, under federal law, you cannot engage in partisan gerrymandering,” Driskell told reporters. “It would not be OK to draw that map based on partisan data.”

Gerrymandering is drawing district boundaries to give one political party, incumbent or group an advantage.

No federal law says states cannot undertake partisan gerrymandering. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims are “political” questions that federal courts can’t answer. 

“The court ruled the matter ‘nonjustiable’ by federal courts,” said Rick Hasan, a UCLA School of Law election law expert. “It recognized the argument that partisan gerrymandering could be unconstitutional but it wasn’t for the federal courts to say when it is happening.”

The court’s majority opinion said excessive gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles,” but state legislatures and Congress have the responsibility to police it. 

Driskell’s office told PolitiFact she misspoke and meant to reference racial gerrymandering prohibitions in federal law and the partisan gerrymandering prohibitions in state law. 

What did the Supreme Court say in 2019?

In Rucho v. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 majority, said that although extreme partisan gerrymandering may seem reasonably “unjust,” the Constitution provides no manageable standard for federal judges to determine when a redistricting plan becomes too partisan. 

“The fact that such (excessive) gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles,’” Roberts wrote, “does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.” Federal judges have “no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution.”

The opinion acknowledged that courts have gotten involved in other redistricting-related claims, such as racial gerrymandering, but said partisan gerrymandering is particularly thorny because it’s well settled law that legislatures can consider politics when drawing maps.

Does the U.S. Constitution say anything about partisan gerrymandering?

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention “gerrymandering” or “partisan gerrymandering.” But the practice is regulated through several constitutional provisions, including the elections clause and the 14th Amendment.

The Article 1, Section 4 elections clause grants state legislatures the power to oversee congressional elections. The Supreme Court pointed to this clause in its 2019 decision as the primary constitutional tool for addressing gerrymandering.

Critics of gerrymandering say it violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by diluting citizens’ voting power based on political affiliation. The clause says no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” requiring them to treat people in similar situations equally and prohibits discriminatory laws.

The Supreme Court has used the clause to strike down racial gerrymandering and population imbalances, often called the “one person, one vote” principle. It ruled in Rucho that federal courts can’t use it to police partisan intent because there’s no clear mathematical standard for “fairness.”

How does this play out for Florida’s new map?

Potential challenges to Florida’s new map lie in state law, not federal.

In 2010, 63% of Florida voters approved the Fair Districts amendments to be added to the state Constitution. They prohibit redistricting plans “with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent” and plans with the intent or result of “denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process.”

“The Florida maps are far more likely to be challenged in state court, on state constitutional grounds, given Florida’s fair districting amendment,” Hasan said. “That’s why DeSantis went out of his way to say that he was drawing the maps because populations have shifted — a clear subterfuge since he sent out maps showing the partisan implications.”

DeSantis had said the Legislature would be “forced” to redistrict because of an expected Supreme Court decision over whether certain race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

The high court ruled the districts unconstitutional, and DeSantis’ lawyers told state lawmakers they now believe both the partisan and racial sections of the Fair Districts amendments are unconstitutional. They said the race-based requirements in one section cannot be severed from the partisan-based requirements in the other.

Courts decide whether a provision can be severed from another by asking whether the drafters would have wanted the entire law to be eliminated, or if they would’ve wanted one part to stay intact, said Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount law school professor who served as a senior Biden policy adviser.

Daniel Smith, University of Florida political science professor, said that although the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision opened the door to partisan gerrymandering in some states, Florida is not one of them.

“Notwithstanding Governor DeSantis’ claims to the contrary,” he said, “under Florida state law, the prohibition of gerrymandering to advantage or disadvantage a party or incumbent is still in effect.”  

Our ruling

Driskell said, “Under federal law, you cannot engage in partisan gerrymandering.”

No federal law says states cannot undertake partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims are “political” questions that federal courts can’t answer, and left it to the states and Congress to pass laws to regulate redistricting.

In Florida, the Fair Districts amendment prohibits drawing congressional or legislative districts partisan intent. Driskell’s office said she misspoke. 

We rate the statement False.

RELATED: Is Florida’s mid-decade redistricting plan ‘illegal,’ as some Democrats say?

RELATED: Florida redistricting: DeSantis overstates voters’ shift from Democrats to Republicans

The federal government has changed its view of marijuana’s dependence and abuse risks, causing some confusion about what that means for Americans. 

Like heroin, ecstasy and LSD, marijuana was formerly classified as a Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse. Marijuana will now be regulated alongside drugs considered to have legitimate medical applications such as Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids.

The Justice Department reclassified state-licensed or FDA-approved medical marijuana products as Schedule III drugs on April 23. Although the change signals a major shift in federal policy, its practical effects are more subtle.

Most states have already adjusted their own laws to provide wider access to marijuana. Forty states, three territories and the District of Columbia had legalized medical cannabis products as of June 2025. And 24 states, three territories and D.C. allow or regulate non-medical cannabis uses. 

But the news might have reinforced some already prevalent fallacies about marijuana. “One of the most common misconceptions is that marijuana is ‘completely safe’ simply because it’s natural or legal,” said Andrew Yockey, a University of Mississippi public health professor. “In reality, research shows it has a mixed risk profile.”

Here are the facts behind four other misconceptions about marijuana and the new federal drug reclassification:

Misconception #1: The federal government just legalized marijuana.

Facts: The Justice Department’s move does not federally legalize marijuana for medicinal or recreational use. It primarily paves the way for state-licensed businesses to receive tax breaks and reduces some research restrictions.  

Under federal law, businesses that sell and distribute Schedule I and II drugs cannot deduct standard business expenses. The new order makes medical marijuana businesses eligible for such deductions and could enable them to get retroactive tax refunds for prior years.

The reclassification, which follows a 2022 law that sought to reduce scientists’ administrative burdens, could further reduce red tape for researchers trying to study marijuana. 

The new order clearly states that researchers studying sanctioned medical marijuana products will not be in violation of federal law. Previously, researchers were limited to researching marijuana obtained through official channels, which some scientists said wasn’t representative of the marijuana sold in dispensaries. Risk-averse researchers may now feel more comfortable studying the cannabis products that are in popular use, said Beau Kilmer, co-director of RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center.

Any change will take time. Anti-marijuana groups have signaled plans to legally challenge the reclassification.

The Justice Department called for a June 29 hearing to consider rescheduling all marijuana products — medical and otherwise. 

Misconception #2: Marijuana is not addictive.

Facts: People can become addicted to cannabis or marijuana. 

Clinically, marijuana or cannabis use disorder refers to continued, uncontrolled use of cannabis despite harmful consequences to a person’s health or daily life.

Many people use marijuana without major problems, but “a meaningful minority” might develop a cannabis use disorder, Yockey said. 

Studies find that between about 22% and 30% of marijuana users have cannabis use disorder. In 2024, rates of substance use disorder involving marijuana in the United States were 3.7 times higher than in 2015, around when more states began legalizing recreational marijuana use.

After alcohol, marijuana use disorder was the second most prevalent substance use disorder in the U.S. for people 12 and older, according to the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. About 7% continue to use and seek it despite the habit impairing their lives. 

Multiple factors can increase a person’s risk of developing cannabis use disorder including frequent cannabis use, using from a young age, smoking tobacco, a family history of substance use disorder and mental health conditions such as anxiety or depression. Some research also signals that specific genetic factors can play a role. 

Misconception #3: Marijuana smoke isn’t bad for your body. 

Facts: Marijuana smoke can contain chemicals linked to cancer and respiratory diseases. It carries respiratory risks — even without the clear, consistent and direct association with long-term health risks that stem from smoking tobacco cigarettes. 

A 2021 study found people who smoke only marijuana had smoke-related toxic chemicals in their blood plasma and urine, though those chemicals were at lower levels than those found in tobacco smokers and people who smoke both products. A 2019 study also found that compared with people who smoke only tobacco cigarettes, cannabis- and tobacco cigarette-smokers were exposed to higher levels of harmful chemicals. 

Ultimately, smoking anything can damage your lungs, and that includes marijuana. 

Misconception #4: Marijuana doesn’t really affect your driving.

Facts: Being under the influence of marijuana impairs your driving. It is also illegal.

Studies have linked drivers’ cannabis use to increased weaving, lane departures and slower reaction times, which can delay responses to hazards. Combining alcohol and marijuana increases impairment. 

A study out of Europe found that drivers who tested positive for cannabis were almost twice as likely to have been responsible for a fatal collision compared to drivers without cannabis in their system. Marijuana’s exact role in crashes is difficult to quantify, however, because blood tests can detect cannabis as many as 30 days after use.

Research is very consistent that THC, cannabis plants’ main psychoactive ingredient, impairs driving or operating heavy machinery, especially soon after its use, Yockey said. 

RELATED: Biden pushes marijuana rescheduling forward, but Trump administration likely to finish process

Democrats say Republicans have ignored voters’ concerns about affordability, including health insurance as they supported President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax and spending bill.

“As a result of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ 15 million Americans have been thrown off the healthcare that they need,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said during a committee hearing that included testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The senator, who frequently talks about the high cost of health insurance or lack of access to it, has cited the 15 million number several times in recent months.

Millions of people are on track to lose Affordable Care Act coverage in the coming years, according to independent estimates. But only a fraction have likely occurred so far.

Nonpartisan agency predicted law would increase number of uninsured over a decade

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act extended income tax cuts for a wide swath of individual taxpayers and businesses, added $75 billion in new funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and made historic cuts to safety net programs, including Medicaid. 

The Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan budget-analysis arm, predicted shortly after the legislation passed that the law would increase the number of people without health insurance by 10 million through 2034. That included people who had been covered by Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act.

Although Sanders’ statement targeted the  legislation, Sanders’ spokesperson Patrick Barham told us the senator was also referring to the expiration of premium tax credits for people purchasing insurance through the ACA marketplaces, expected to affect about 4 million people. Barham said these two factors “will strip coverage from more than 15 million Americans and increase out-of-pocket health care costs for millions more.” He cited an analysis by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Data shows a decline in the number signed up for ACA

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported in March that 23.1 million consumers were enrolled in ACA plans for 2026. That’s about 1 million less than in 2025.

So far, New Jersey and New York are among the states reporting decreased enrollment.

Community health centers that serve high volumes of ACA-enrolled patients have reported declines in insured patients, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University healthcare law and policy professor. Young people have disproportionately shed their insurance, leaving older, sicker people insured. 

Medicaid work requirements under the 2025 law are set to take effect in January 2027, although some states are implementing the new rules this year, including Nebraska and Montana. 

KFF Health News reported that most Medicaid beneficiaries affected by these provisions are expected to lose health insurance coverage not because they don’t work but because of paperwork errors, such as failing to document their hours worked.

Joe Antos, an American Enterprise Institute emeritus health policy specialist, said it’s not easy to assign the cause or causes of declining ACA enrollment, given the changes in the law and overall inflation that is squeezing many households. 

Our ruling

Sanders said, “As a result of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ 15 million Americans have been thrown off the healthcare that they need.”

This is premature. ACA plan enrollment is down about 1 million people since 2025. The CBO projected that 10 million people would be newly uninsured by 2034 as a result of the 2025 bill. Separate from the legislation, in 2026 roughly 4 million people were expected to lose expiring tax credits that subsidized their coverage.

Although close to 15 million people are expected to lose coverage — not all of them because of the One Big Beautiful Bill — it hasn’t happened yet and we cannot know with certainty that it will. 

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

RELATED: Would rural residents get hit twice as hard by expiring ACA subsidies?

Graham Platner’s comments about rape more than a decade ago are the subject of a new ad attacking the Democrat trying to oust U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, in a nationally watched contest.

“Graham Platner blames Maine’s women for getting raped because he says they get f—– up drunk,” the April 26 ad by Pine Tree Results PAC says. (A similar ad from the PAC makes the same claim.)

The attack echoes previous ads by Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Platner’s main rival in the June 9 Democratic primary. The winner will face Collins, the 30-year incumbent.

The PAC supports Collins, according to Federal Election Commission filings, and opposes Platner, an oyster farmer, veteran and political newcomer. Recent polls show Platner has a double-digit lead over Mills, a two-term governor who has served in public office for decades.

The PAC ad’s account of what Platner said differs slightly from what Platner wrote on a Reddit forum, and it doesn’t capture his apology.

PAC ad took liberties with Platner’s deleted rape post 

The ad cites two sources for Platner’s rape remarks: Reddit in 2013 and an October 2025 Bangor Daily News story. The local news outlet wrote about his posts multiple times that month.

In the Reddit thread with a header “shorts that prevent you from being raped.” Platner, then 29, commented: 

“Holy f—, how about people just take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f—– up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to? Men and women, you make a choice to consume enough of a substance to lose your self control. So if you don’t want to be in a comprising situation, act like an adult for f—- sake.” (He misspelled “compromising” and spelled out the expletives.)

The post continued: “Rape is a real thing, if you’re so worried about it to buy Kevlar underwear you’d think you might not get blacked out f—– up around people you aren’t comfortable with.”

The Washington Post found the since-deleted Reddit post.

The attack ad echoes the essence of Platner’s comment but editorializes with “Maine’s women”; Platner’s comment did not mention a particular state, and he called out both “men and women” for choosing to abuse substances.

Ad uses present tense, but Platner apologized for old post

Although the ad uses the present tense, saying Platner “blames,” he has repeatedly characterized the comment as reflective of beliefs he does not support today.

In October, Platner said he was “deeply sorry” for his remarks in a five-minute video in response to a news report about the Reddit post. Platner said that when he reads the old post, he sees “words and statements that I abhor. I also see the trajectory of my life.” 

Platner said he made the comments shortly after he got out of the Army and had post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Platner, who also served in the Marines, fought overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I went on the internet to post stupid things and get in fights and find some form of community in some way, some outlet for my feelings, for my rage, for my isolation,” Platner said.

He said that he stopped posting on Reddit a few years ago and that his life changed when he moved back to his hometown, started a business and fell in love.

“I don’t want you to judge me on the dumbest thing I ever wrote on the internet,” Platner said. “I would prefer if people could judge me on the person I am today.”

He reiterated in March that he was “horrified” by his past remarks after Mills issued an ad about them. He said that what he wrote does “not in any way reflect who I am today or the beliefs that I hold.”

National spending drawn to Maine election

The Pine Tree Results PAC said it was spending $2 million on the ad in an April FEC expenditure report. The PAC has raised about $12.7 million. 

The largest donors are from Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Florida. Top donors include: 

National groups are investing in the Maine race because it is one of a few contests in which Democrats have a chance of flipping a seat. Collins was first elected to the Senate in 1996.

Politico reported that the PAC is airing TV and digital ads. The PAC’s treasurer did not respond to our questions. 

Our ruling

An ad said that “Graham Platner blames Maine’s women for getting raped because he says they get f—— up drunk.”

In a Reddit thread about a video discussing shorts to prevent rape, Platner commented: “Rape is a real thing. If you’re so worried about it to buy Kevlar underwear you’d think you might not get blacked out f—– up around people you aren’t comfortable with.” He called out men and women for their choices in using substances. 

The post was not directed at women in Maine. And although the ad uses present tense, Platner said it does not reflect his current views. He apologized for the remark several times since it resurfaced during his campaign.

We rate this statement Half True.

PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks in the 2026 midterms

After a gunman sought to breach the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, some lawmakers said Secret Service agents foiled his plot even though their agency is currently unfunded during a partial government shutdown. 

The day after the April 25 dinner, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., posted on X, “Secret Service remains unpaid. Left-wing leaders call for violence against conservatives. And the media acts like this is all normal.”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., echoed the point about Secret Service pay, posting on X, “Democrats have REFUSED to pay Secret Service agents for over 70 DAYS. The very agents that put their lives on the line to protect others and keep our nation safe. The Democrats need to give up this RIDICULOUS political stunt and FULLY FUND DHS.”

These statements mislead about Secret Service agents’ pay. Although agents might not get paid typically under a government shutdown, the Trump administration reallocated money authorized under President Donald Trump’s 2025 signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Under normal circumstances, a shutdown would result in some employees not receiving their normal appropriated salaries, but the administration has other resources at their disposal,” said Dominik Lett, a budget policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Tim Scott’s office did not respond to inquiries for this article, nor did Rick Scott’s. The White House referred us to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to inquiries. Neither the Secret Service nor the Department of Homeland Security responded, either.

Why is there a funding lapse?

A funding lapse, often called a government shutdown, happens when money Congress has appropriated for federal agencies runs out without lawmakers passing a new funding bill. 

In 2025, the government experienced a record 43-day shutdown. During this earlier shutdown, federal workers generally were not paid. Once that shutdown ended, most of the federal government returned to fully funded status — with one exception, the Department of Homeland Security. 

Democrats have been unwilling to vote to fund the department without changes to immigration enforcement policy; Republicans have been unwilling to support some of the changes Democrats are seeking. So the two parties remain in a standoff. This has meant that the department and all its subsidiary agencies, including the Secret Service, are currently unfunded. 

Why this shutdown evolved differently

In traditional government funding standoffs, employees working for unfunded departments might be asked to work, but they cannot be paid until funding is restored. (By law, workers in this situation are eventually given their full back pay.)

The current Homeland Security funding lapse has proceeded differently.

On April 3 — after widespread news coverage of long airport security lines because of a lack of pay for federal security screeners — Trump signed an executive order that reallocated federal money so Homeland Security employees, including the Secret Service, could be paid.

The money came from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which provided about $140 billion for DHS agencies Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection outside of the normal congressional appropriations process. In effect, the administration shifted money from border security to other areas, including the Secret Service.

“Those funds are currently being used to pay all DHS salaries, including non-law enforcement (Secret Service) personnel, until (the funds) are exhausted or (fiscal year 2026) DHS appropriations are enacted,” the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, wrote April 28.

While Secret Service employees are receiving their standard pay, they have felt a monetary pinch in other ways from the shutdown, according to Susan Crabtree, national correspondent for RealClearPolitics who has written extensively about the Secret Service.

Crabtree posted April 25 on X that, based on conversations with Secret Service employees, many “have been under financial stress” because they’ve used their government credit cards to cover job-related costs that may not be immediately reimbursed. Government credit cards are tied to personal credit scores, so unpaid balances can affect personal credit ratings.

Our ruling

Tim Scott said the “Secret Service remains unpaid” during the current partial government shutdown.

The Trump administration shifted money from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to DHS, including to pay Secret Service employee salaries.

We rate the statement False.

Social media users are posting about people who died or disappeared, claiming they are all scientists who knew secrets about nuclear research and unidentified flying objects.

They theorize that what happened to these people, who have died or disappeared since 2021, is concerted and not a coincidence. A viral April 14 X post read, “Can anyone explain what the deal is with all the missing scientists lately? We’ve had like 10 disappearances in the last two years. …What’s the deal? It’s too much to be coincidence. It’s a legitimate anomaly. It’s spooky.”

A former lawmaker is also posting about it.

“There are 11 missing or dead or suicided scientists all linked to space or military programs and the FBI just now opened a ‘probe,’” former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene posted April 22 on X.

Discussion about the scientists isn’t limited to social media. The FBI and the House Oversight Committee said they are investigating any potential connections among the missing and dead scientists and whether a national security threat exists. NASA, where several of the people were employed, said it is working with the relevant agencies. 

President Donald Trump told reporters April 16 that he had a meeting on the topic and “we’re gonna look at it over the next short period.” 

We tracked 14 names that have surfaced in these posts. We examined their backgrounds and the circumstances of their deaths or disappearances, and some of the claims about potential connections among them don’t hold up. We also found that they were not all scientists. 

Here’s what’s been said and what we know.

The people did not all work together

Some social media posts claimed the people were professionally affiliated. An April 8 X post said, “Nearly all of them worked together — and died or vanished within the last two years.”

That’s overstated. We found no evidence that “nearly all” were colleagues. 

These are their past employers and dates of death or disappearance:

NASA

• Michael David Hicks, died in July 2023.

• Frank Maiwald, died in July 2024.

• Monica Reza, disappeared in June 2025.

• Joshua LeBlanc, died in July 2025.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

• Anthony Chavez, disappeared in May 2025.

• Melissa Casias, disappeared in June 2025.

U.S. Air Force

• William McCasland, disappeared in February.

• Matthew Sullivan, died in 2024.

Other employers

• Steven Garcia, disappeared in August 2025; worked at the Kansas City National Security Campus.

• Carl Grillmair, died in February; worked at the California Institute of Technology and collaborated with NASA.

• Jason Thomas, disappeared in December 2025, found dead in March; worked at Novartis.

• Nuno Loureiro, died in December 2025; worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

• Amy Eskridge, died June 2022; founded the Institute for Exotic Science.

• Ning Li, died in 2021; worked at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, founded AC Gravity.

Unclear whether any of the people worked on classified nuclear or UFO programs

Some social media users claimed the people were targeted for their access to secret programs involving space and nuclear research. But that’s unsupported.

“TEN American scientists familiar with the US nuclear program are either missing, have died suddenly or have been murdered in the last 12 months. Nobody with power seems to think that’s in any way strange…” read one April 16 X post.

An April 7 X post read, “BREAKING: General William Neil McCasland and seven other scientists, now dead or missing, were linked to UFO and alien research & exposure, according to Tim Burchett.” In recent interviews, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., mentioned UFOs in connection with the missing or dead scientists.

We asked NASA what projects Hicks, Maiwald, Grillmair, Reza and LeBlanc worked on. The agency referred us to an April 20 X post from NASA Spokesperson Bethany Stevens, which said: “NASA is coordinating and cooperating with the relevant agencies in relation to the missing scientists. At this time, nothing related to NASA indicates a national security threat. The agency is committed to transparency and will provide more information as able.”

Some of the people studied nuclear science but it’s unclear whether they were involved in classified programs; others worked at nuclear research facilities but not in scientific roles.

Here’s what we know about their professional backgrounds:

Of the group who worked at NASA, Hicks studied comets and asteroids. Maiwald worked on microwave radiometry and Earth science missions. Reza specialized in rocket materials. LeBlanc was an electrical engineer.

Those who worked at Los Alamos, a nuclear research facility, did not appear to have scientific roles. Casias worked as an administrative assistant, and Chavez as a construction foreman, USA Today reported.

Of the two affiliated with the U.S. Air Force, McCasland and Sullivan, McCasland’s wife wrote in a Facebook post that he “had access to some highly classified programs and information,” but he retired from the Air Force almost 13 years ago. “It seems quite unlikely that he was taken to extract very dated secrets from him,” she said.

She also said McCasland had a “brief association with the UFO community,” when he worked as a consultant for a fiction book.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said Sullivan died before testifying in a federal whistleblower case on UFOs.

The others who worked at different institutions included Garcia, who was a government contractor and property custodian at the Kansas City National Security Campus, which develops nonnuclear components for nuclear weapons. The Hill reported that he had top security clearance at the facility. Grillmair, the astrophysicist, studied dark matter, Galactic structure, stellar populations and exoplanets, according to his CalTech page.

Thomas worked on chemical biology. Loureiro was a professor of nuclear science and engineering and of physics at MIT. Li and Eskridge studied anti-gravity.

Cause of deaths and disappearances probed

FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News his agency will look for potential connections to foreign actors.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has speculated that foreign adversaries such as China, North Korea, Iran or Russia may be involved because of their interest in the U.S. nuclear program.

Suspects have been arrested in some of the deaths. 

Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a Portuguese national, fatally shot Loureiro and two students on Brown University’s campus in Rhode Island. Neves Valente died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound days later. The Justice Department said Neves Valente had been planning the shooting for at least six semesters, but released no motive. Neves Valente and Loureiro previously attended school together in Portugal.

Grillmair was shot at his home in February. A suspect was arrested and authorities believe the two did not know each other. 

Other cases involve unexplained disappearances. 

Casias disappeared on a day when she dropped off her husband at work, went back home, and brought lunch for her daughter at her workplace. Casias’ personal belongings remained at her home. New Mexico State Police said April 21 that the investigation continues, and the agency does not suspect foul play, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported. 

Chavez walked out of his home and disappeared. On April 21, CNN reported that a detective said there are no signs of foul play, but also no indications that he had planned to leave.

McCasland walked out of his home without his phone, prescription glasses and wearable devices, and disappeared.

LeBlanc left his phone, wallet and dog at his apartment. 

Reza’s body has not been recovered after she went missing during a hike. 

Thomas’ body was found in a lake after he went missing for three months. Thomas’ wife said he left his phone and wallet on the bathroom counter. Authorities did not suspect foul play.

And other cases had some details about the circumstances.

Garcia left his home on foot with a handgun. News outlets reported that Eskridge died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

Sullivan died from a lethal mix of alcohol and drugs, the New York Post reported. 

Finally, a handful of the cases had no information available about the deaths. Li died in 2021 and Hicks died in 2023, but the reasons for their deaths are not public. 

We found no public information about Maiwald’s cause of death. 

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

After law enforcement thwarted a potential attack on the White House correspondents’ dinner with President Donald Trump and top leaders, Republican commentators accused Democrats of using violent rhetoric.

A remark by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., popped up repeatedly on TV and online.

“I heard Hakeem Jeffries say this week ‘its maximum warfare all the time,’” CNN conservative pundit Scott Jennings said April 26.  “We have a violent streak on the left and a rhetoric problem on the left.”

The Republican National Committee responded on X to Jeffries condemning political violence on a Sunday political show, sharing a clip of his “maximum warfare” remark and asking if he will “apologize and condemn this type of violent rhetoric.” 

Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Randy Fine of Florida also criticized Jeffries’ comment, while Tim Young, a conservative pundit, said Jeffries “caused” this.

While Jeffries used those words, the soundbite lacks larger context.

Jeffries’ said “maximum warfare” to describe Democrats’ efforts to secure more House seats after Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment on redistricting April 21, seen as a win for Democrats.

In an April 22 press conference to celebrate the Democrats’ Virginia victory, a reporter asked Jeffries if Florida pursues redistricting what other seats will Democrats look to next. Jeffries said:

“We are in an era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time. And we are going to keep the pressure on Republicans at every single state in the union, to ensure at the end of the day, that there is a fair, national map. Because we believe that it is the people who should decide who is in the majority in the next Congress. Not Donald Trump and MAGA extremists.”

It wasn’t his first time using the phrase in a redistricting context— and Jeffries didn’t come up with it. It came up from someone on Trump’s side months earlier in media coverage of state redistricting battles.

In August 2025, The New York Times examined the consequences of Trump pushing Texas Republicans to redistrict, leading Democrats to talk about fighting “fire with fire.” The Times wrote: “One person close to the president, who insisted on anonymity to describe the White House’s political strategy candidly, summed it up succinctly: “Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

After the Virginia vote, Jeffries repeated the Trump ally’s words verbatim in an April 21 X post, “Democrats defeated Donald Trump’s gerrymandering scheme in Virginia tonight. We will crush the DeSantis Dummymander in Florida next. Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

Jeffries used the phrase in the title of a YouTube video April 21 celebrating the Virginia redistricting outcome.

Where redistricting stands

The outcome of various states’ partisan redistricting efforts is not settled.

The Virginia Supreme Court will consider a Republican lawsuit seeking to undo the Democratic-driven redistricting in an April 27 hearing.

Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature starts a special redistricting session April 28. 

Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves called for a special session on redistricting to be held in May, pegged to the resolution of a U.S. Supreme Court case in which conservatives challenged Louisiana’s two Black-majority districts. It’s unclear whether Reeves’ call would address the state’s congressional map.

RELATED: Is Florida’s mid-decade redistricting plan ‘illegal,’ as some Democrats say?

RELATED: Fact-checking falsehoods after shooting in hotel hosting correspondents’ dinner Trump attended

RELATED: Column: Why a correspondents’ dinner at a White House ballroom could endanger press freedom