Fact Check: benny johnson was paid by russians

Fact Check: benny johnson was paid by russians

May 26, 2025by TruthOrFake AI
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Claim Analysis: "Benny Johnson was paid by Russians" ## 1. Introduction The claim that "Benny Johnson was paid by Russians" stems from recent alleg...

Claim Analysis: "Benny Johnson was paid by Russians"

1. Introduction

The claim that "Benny Johnson was paid by Russians" stems from recent allegations surrounding a media company, Tenet Media, which is said to have received funding from Russian state media to produce content that aligns with Kremlin interests. This claim has gained traction following indictments and reports from various news outlets, suggesting that several conservative influencers, including Johnson, were involved in this operation. However, the specifics of Johnson's involvement and whether he knowingly participated in a Russian-funded scheme remain unclear.

2. What We Know

  • Indictments and Allegations: The U.S. Department of Justice has indicted two Russian nationals linked to RT (a state-funded media outlet) for allegedly funding Tenet Media, which reportedly paid American influencers, including Benny Johnson, to create videos that supported pro-Kremlin narratives. The total funding mentioned is nearly $10 million 178.
  • Influencer Reactions: Influencers like Johnson have publicly stated that they were unaware of the funding source and claim to be victims of deception if the allegations are proven true 210. Johnson's statements suggest he did not knowingly participate in a Russian influence operation.
  • Media Coverage: Major news outlets, including AP News, BBC, and The New York Times, have reported on these developments, detailing the nature of the allegations and the influencers involved 146.

3. Analysis

Source Evaluation

  • AP News: This source is generally considered reliable and provides a straightforward account of the allegations, citing official documents and statements from law enforcement 1. However, as a wire service, it may not provide in-depth analysis or context.
  • BBC: Known for its balanced reporting, the BBC presents the influencers' perspective and highlights their claims of being victims of a Russian plot, which adds a layer of complexity to the narrative 2. However, it does not delve deeply into the evidence supporting the allegations.
  • The New York Times: This outlet offers a detailed examination of the situation, including background on the media company and the influencers involved. Its investigative journalism is typically thorough, but it may carry a liberal bias that could color its interpretation of events 4.
  • NPR and PBS: Both outlets provide comprehensive coverage of the allegations and the broader implications for U.S. politics, emphasizing the historical context of Russian interference in elections 56. Their reporting is generally regarded as reliable, though they may also reflect a particular editorial stance.
  • CNN: CNN's coverage includes details about the financial aspects of the operation and the influencers' responses. While CNN is a major news source, it has faced criticism for perceived bias, which could affect how the information is presented 89.

Methodology and Evidence

The claims regarding Johnson's involvement hinge on the indictment of Russian nationals and the assertion that they funded Tenet Media. However, the evidence presented so far primarily consists of legal documents and statements from the Justice Department, which may not provide a complete picture of Johnson's knowledge or intent 79. The influencers' claims of being duped add another layer of complexity, as they may have a vested interest in distancing themselves from the allegations to maintain their credibility and audience trust.

Conflicts of Interest

The influencers involved, including Johnson, may have a conflict of interest in how they present their involvement. Their public statements could be motivated by a desire to protect their reputations and financial interests, particularly if they were compensated significantly by Tenet Media 10. Additionally, the media outlets reporting on these allegations may have their own biases that could influence the framing of the story.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim that "Benny Johnson was paid by Russians" is deemed partially true based on the available evidence. Indictments against Russian nationals indicate that Tenet Media received funding from Russian state media, which allegedly included payments to influencers like Johnson. However, Johnson and others have publicly asserted that they were unaware of the funding source and claim to be victims of deception. This introduces uncertainty regarding their knowledge and intent.

While there is a basis for the claim due to the financial connections outlined in the indictments, the lack of direct evidence proving Johnson's awareness or complicity complicates the narrative. The influencers' claims of being misled must also be considered, as they may have motivations to protect their reputations.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the evidence available at this time. The ongoing legal proceedings and investigations may yield further insights, but as of now, the situation remains complex and fluid. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions.

5. Sources

  1. Right-wing influencers were duped to work for Russian operation, US says | AP News. Link
  2. Right-wing US influencers say they were victims of alleged Russian plot | BBC. Link
  3. Benny Johnson (columnist) - Wikipedia. Link
  4. How Russia Found Its Way Into America’s Conservative Media | The New York Times. Link
  5. How Russian operatives covertly hired U.S. influencers to create viral videos | NPR. Link
  6. Well-known right-wing influencers duped to work for covert Russian operation, U.S. prosecutors say | PBS News. Link
  7. U.S. says Russia funded media company that paid right-wing influencers millions for videos | CBS News. Link
  8. Right-wing influencers say they were dupes in an alleged Russian influence operation. They’re keeping their millions, for now | CNN Business. Link
  9. Tenet Media: DOJ alleges Russia funded US company linked to Tim Pool and Benny Johnson | CNN Politics. Link
  10. US conservative influencers say they are ‘victims’ of Russian disinformation campaign | The Guardian. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on which Israel committed egregious atrocities in and around Palestine; it's all about 1948, and it's important to remember this date well. The war and the complete failure of all attempts to achieve a viable peace have pushed Palestine back to this date. The 76 years that have passed have been a fruitless struggle for 'peace'. All they have done is give Israel four decades to reinforce its total control over Palestine. This is all about history. Understanding the struggle for Palestine requires understanding its historical context. The modern history commences with Britain using the Zionists, while simultaneously being utilized by them, to establish an imperial foothold in the Middle East, effectively transforming Israel into the central pillar of a bridge from Egypt and the Nile to Iraq, its oil, and the Gulf. The calculations were devoid of morality, driven solely by self-interest. Britain had no right to cede a portion of the area it was occupying—Palestine—to another occupier, and the UN similarly lacked the authority to do so. The 1947 General Assembly partition resolution was essentially a US resolution anyway; the numbers were fixed by the White House once it became clear that it would fail. Chaim Weizmann, the prominent Zionist leader in London and Washington, requested Truman's intervention. “I am aware of how much abstaining delegations would be swayed by your counsel and the influence of your government,” he informed the president. “I refer to China, Honduras, Colombia, Mexico, Liberia, Ethiopia, Greece. I beg and pray for your decisive intervention at this decisive hour.” Among the countries that needed a push were the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, and France. “We went for it," stated Clark Clifford, Truman’s special counsel, subsequently. “It was because the White House was for it that it went through. I kept the ramrod up the State Department’s butt.” Herschel Johnson, the deputy chief of the US mission at the UN, cried in frustration while speaking to Loy Henderson, a senior diplomat and head of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs, who was a staunch adversary of the construction of a Zionist settler state in Palestine. “Loy, forgive me for breaking down like this,” Johnson stated, “but Dave Niles called us here a couple of days ago and said that the president had instructed him to tell us that, by God, he wanted us to get busy and get all the votes that we possibly could, that there would be hell if the voting went the other way.” In September, UNSCOP (the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) convened an ad hoc committee to evaluate its proposals. The committee consisted of all members of the General Assembly, with subcommittees designated to evaluate the suggestions presented. On November 25, the General Assembly, acting as an ad hoc committee, approved partition with a vote of 25 in favor, 13 against, and 17 abstentions. A two-thirds majority was required for the partition resolution to succeed in the General Assembly plenary session four days later, indicating its impending failure. However, following the White House's endorsement, seven of the 17 abstainers from November 25 voted 'yes' on November 29, resulting in the passage of Resolution 181 (II) with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. Niles, the Zionists' ‘point man’ at the White House, subsequently partnered with Clark Clifford to undermine the State Department's proposal to replace partition with trusteeship for the time being because of the violence threatened in Palestine. Niles was the first member of a series of Zionist lobbyists sent to monitor the presidency from within. Despite their unpopularity and potential resentment, the presidents had no choice but to tolerate their persistent pressure. During John Kennedy's administration, Mike (Myer) Feldman was permitted to oversee all State Department and White House cable concerning the Middle East. Despite internal opposition within the White House, Kennedy perceived Feldman “as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid,” as noted by Seymour Hersh in The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (p. 98). Lyndon Johnson took over Feldman after Kennedy's assassination, granting Israel all its demands without offering anything in return. The transfer of Palestine to a recent settler minority contravened fundamental UN norms, including the right to self-determination. Resistance to Zionism and the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine were significant within the US administration, but it was the man in the White House, influenced by domestic interests (money and votes), who called the shots and has been calling them ever since. Palestine went from British control to American hands, and then to the Zionists. 29 November 1947 - partition plans. 33 voted for, 13 voted against, 10 abstained The desires of the Palestinians were irrelevant to the 'return' of the Jewish people to their ''ancient homeland'', as noted by Arthur Balfour. The fact that Jews could not 'return’ to a land in which they or their ancestors had never lived was equally immaterial. What went on behind closed doors to ensure the establishment of a colonial-settler state in Palestine, contrary to the desires of its populace, represents but one episode in a protracted history of duplicity, deceit, persistent breaches of international law, and violations of fundamental UN principles. The so-called "Palestine problem" has never been a "Palestine problem," but rather a Western and Zionist problem—a volatile combination of the two that the perpetrators are still blaming on their victims. There would be no ambiguity regarding our current situation at the precipice if Western governments and the media held Israel accountable rather than shielding, endorsing, and rationalizing even the most egregious offenses under the pretext of Israel's 'right' to self-defense. It is absurd to propose that a thief has any form of 'right' to 'defend' stolen property. The right belongs to the person fighting for its return, as the Palestinians have been doing daily since 1948. Aside from the 5–6% of land acquired by Zionist purchasing agencies before 1948, Israelis are living on and in stolen property. They will defend it, but they have no 'right' to defend something that, by any legal, moral, historical, or cultural measure, belongs to someone else. This has never been a 'conflict of rights' as 'liberal' Zionists have claimed, because a right is a right and cannot conflict with another right. The real rights in this context are evident, or would be, if they were not persistently suppressed by Western governments and a media that unconditionally safeguards Israel's actions. Although the non-binding UNGA partition resolution of that year did not include a 'transfer' of the Palestinian population, the creation of a Jewish state would have been more challenging without it. Without the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians, the demographic composition of the 'Jewish state' would have included an equal number of Palestinian Muslims and Christians alongside Jews. War was the sole means of getting rid of Palestinian natives; raw force achieved what Theodor Herzl envisioned when he referred to “spiriting” the “penniless population” from their land. Upon its completion, Weizmann expressed excitement regarding this "miraculous simplification of our task." Following 1948, there were massacres in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan; massacres in Lebanon; and wars and assassinations throughout the region and beyond. A second wave of ethnic cleansing succeeded the 1948 one in 1967, and now a third and fourth wave is taking place in Gaza and southern Lebanon, terrorizing and slaughtering town dwellers and villagers into fleeing. https://preview.redd.it/orxl88k6mfoe1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12103a2b560e3af2f72c656e6e39fdbea64caa11 Western governments and the media are facilitating the gradual, covert, illegal, and pseudo-legal erosion of Palestinian life and rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is remarkable how the media constantly discusses October 7 but never talks about any of this critical history. Of course, as an accomplice to one of the biggest crimes of the 20th century, meticulously orchestrated and executed violently, discussing it candidly would entail self-incrimination; thus, it diverts the discourse to alternative subjects—''Hamas terrorism'', ''October 7''—anything to distract from Israel's egregious war crimes. This distortion of the narrative has persisted since the PLO and the popular fronts of the 1960s were labeled as terrorists, while Israel was portrayed as a plucky small state merely defending itself. The Poles, the French, and other Europeans opposed the Nazi occupation. The distinction is clear: resistance to occupation by Palestinians is labeled as terrorism, while state-sponsored terrorism is characterized as 'self-defense.' This distortion of truth has been outrageously amplified following the pager/walkie-talkie terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel in Lebanon. Western governments and their connected media entities have rationalized and even lauded them. The Palestinians demonstrated their readiness to transcend the events of 1948 and to make significant concessions for peace —22 percent of the land in exchange for relinquishing 78 percent—provided Israel would engage sincerely with the rights of the 1948 generation; nevertheless, Israel ignored their offers contemptuously. The Palestinians were willing to share Jerusalem, but Israel was not receptive to this proposition. It had consistently desired all of Palestine. The Netanyahu government, seeing no need for such concealment, now unveils the truth that the 1990s 'peace process' and previous proposals from various diplomatic entities obscured. It explicitly states its desires, regardless of the opinions of others, including former partners, which align with the initial aspirations of the Zionist movement: all of Palestine, ideally devoid of Palestinians. Israel's refusal to cede any portion of Palestine has blurred the distinctions between the pre- and post-1967 eras. There are no delineating green lines between occupied and unoccupied territories, only the red lines that Israel transgresses daily. Deprived of even a small portion of their homeland, Palestinians and their supporters are compelled to resort to resistance and are resolute in their pursuit of reclaiming all of 1948 Palestine, rather than merely the limited fraction they previously would have accepted. Western countries facilitate and even promote Israel's existence outside international law by providing arms and financial assistance. Israel's occupation, massacres, and assassinations occur because of Western governments' tacit approval and encouragement. If Israel commits genocide, it is due to Western nations' acquiescence and implicit endorsement. If Israel is condemning itself to endless war with those whose fundamental rights it has infringed upon for the past 76 years, it is due to Western governments' acceptance. They have allowed Israel to push the world to the brink of regional and even global conflict. Israel is chaotic, yet it has never been orderly. The West has also permitted this, and it will face consequences.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It is all about 1948. It's not about October 7, 1956, 1967, 1982, 2008, 2014 or any other date on wh...

Mar 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: I have paid for Duolingo subscription. It worked for several months. but recently I have been depriv...
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: I have paid for Duolingo subscription. It worked for several months. but recently I have been depriv...

Detailed fact-check analysis of: I have paid for Duolingo subscription. It worked for several months. but recently I have been depriv...

May 25, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel still friends?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel still friends?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel still friends?

May 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are NCAA basketball players paid?
Partially True

Fact Check: Are NCAA basketball players paid?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are NCAA basketball players paid?

May 7, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: Are NCAA athletes paid?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are NCAA athletes paid?

May 7, 2025
Read more →
🔍
False

Fact Check: Is FMLA paid?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is FMLA paid?

May 25, 2025
Read more →