Fact Check: C.O.V.I.D. started in a Chinese lab

Fact Check: C.O.V.I.D. started in a Chinese lab

Published July 28, 2025
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact-Check: "C.O.V.I.D. started in a Chinese lab" ## What We Know The claim that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, specifically the Wuha...

Fact-Check: "C.O.V.I.D. started in a Chinese lab"

What We Know

The claim that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), has been a topic of intense debate. According to a 2025 article by Jin-Hong Yoo, the lab-leak theory suggests that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the WIV during research activities. This theory gained traction due to circumstantial evidence, such as reports of early COVID-like symptoms among WIV researchers and the proximity of the initial outbreak to the laboratory.

However, the prevailing scientific consensus supports the natural spillover hypothesis, which posits that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, likely emerged from animal reservoirs, such as bats or pangolins, before infecting humans. This view is reinforced by genomic analyses and evolutionary studies that trace the virus's origins to wildlife markets in Wuhan, as highlighted in multiple studies (Andersen et al., 2020, Boni et al., 2020, Worobey et al., 2022).

The U.S. intelligence community has also assessed that both natural and lab-related origins remain plausible, although the lack of cooperation from Chinese authorities complicates definitive conclusions (CIA statement). Furthermore, a recent report from Germany's foreign intelligence service indicated a high probability (80-90%) that the virus leaked from a lab, reflecting a shift in some intelligence assessments (BBC report).

Analysis

The evidence surrounding the lab-leak theory is largely circumstantial and remains contested. While there are reports of early illnesses among WIV researchers, the scientific community has emphasized that the viruses used in WIV experiments were not capable of causing COVID-19 as they were not complete, infectious particles (Yoo, 2025). Dr. Shi Zhengli, a prominent researcher at WIV, has consistently denied any connection between the lab's work and the outbreak, further complicating the narrative (Yoo, 2025).

The reliability of sources discussing the lab-leak theory varies. Articles from reputable scientific journals and government assessments provide a more cautious and balanced view, emphasizing the need for rigorous evidence before drawing conclusions. In contrast, politically motivated narratives may skew the interpretation of available data, as seen in the U.S. government's recent declarations that some critics argue are politically charged (Yoo, 2025).

The emergence of the lab-leak theory has also been influenced by geopolitical tensions and public distrust towards the Chinese government, particularly regarding its transparency in the early stages of the pandemic. This context must be considered when evaluating the credibility of claims surrounding the virus's origins (Yoo, 2025).

Conclusion

The claim that "C.O.V.I.D. started in a Chinese lab" is Partially True. While there is some circumstantial evidence supporting the lab-leak theory, the predominant scientific consensus favors the natural origin hypothesis. The ongoing investigations and assessments by intelligence agencies indicate that both possibilities remain plausible, but definitive evidence supporting the lab-leak theory is lacking. The political context surrounding this claim further complicates the discourse, necessitating a careful and evidence-based approach to understanding the origins of COVID-19.

Sources

  1. On the Controversies Surrounding the Lab-Leak Theory ...
  2. News: Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped... (The New ...
  3. Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins
  4. Classified State Department Documents Credibly Suggest ...
  5. COVID-19 lab leak theory
  6. House panel concludes that COVID-19 pandemic came ...
  7. CIA believes COVID likely originated from a lab | AP News
  8. German spy agency 'believed Covid likely started in lab'

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

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: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: 🚨NORTH CAROLINA Expands Concealed Carry Rights! Carry in 37 States🚨
🇺🇸 You now can qualify ONLINE for a North Carolina CCW Permit 🇺🇸
⬇️ Click Below To Get Started Now⬇️
https://concealedpermittoday.com/north-carolina-concealed/
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: 🚨NORTH CAROLINA Expands Concealed Carry Rights! Carry in 37 States🚨 🇺🇸 You now can qualify ONLINE for a North Carolina CCW Permit 🇺🇸 ⬇️ Click Below To Get Started Now⬇️ https://concealedpermittoday.com/north-carolina-concealed/

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 🚨NORTH CAROLINA Expands Concealed Carry Rights! Carry in 37 States🚨 🇺🇸 You now can qualify ONLINE for a North Carolina CCW Permit 🇺🇸 ⬇️ Click Below To Get Started Now⬇️ https://concealedpermittoday.com/north-carolina-concealed/

Jul 29, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
White conservatives is not
considering this child an
anchor baby. Education is
elevation and let's get into
the conservative contradictions
of everything they say about
immigration. For instance, do
y'all know that Melania Trump's
visa was questioned in a
congressional hearing this
January twenty twenty-five. You
want to know why? Melania Trump
was a college dropout who
arrived in the United States on
a Einstein visa. Get this
though. Reserved. The other
visa is reserved for people
with extraordinary ability and
sustained national
international acclaim such as a
palitza, Oscar, Olympic Winter,
But listen, Baron was born
00:32
March 20th two thousand and 6.
Melania became a US citizen
July twenty-8th two thousand
and 6. Trump wants to end
birthright citizenship when his
own child is a product of
birthright citizenship. We can
question a Mexican-American
citizen for marrying an
undocumented Mexican. Oh yeah,
we gotta be able to question
when Europeans do the same
thing or no. On my mama, think
about it. There are 666, 000
illegal immigrants in the
United States from European
countries. The vast majority of
them are white. Yet you don't
01:03
see a single one of them have
their children stripped away
from them, raided, locked up in
cages, and we all know why. You
know equal protection under the
law has always been a myth and
the word immigration has always
been a cold word for unwanted
color people. They ain't
worried about they child being
kidnapped. They ain't worried
about dropping Baron off at
school or in college and him
being being kidnapped by masked
Asians. Elon Musk worked in
United States illegally in 1995
after quit his school job. I
feel like if a Haitian
immigrant came over here and
worked illegally and ended up
amassing a whole bunch of
wealth they will find and trump wants to end birthright citizen ship?	
everything to be illegitimate
because you started off
illegal. Let's pay attention to
the language too y'all. So
Donald Trump's grandfather was
a illegal migrant and a Trojan
horse. Which means that Donald
Trump's parents is a product of
being what they call what a
tether baby, a anchor baby, a
birthright citizenship. To the
people on this side, they do
not believe that the Second
Amendment only applies to
muskets. So you believe that
their only applies to the
sentence of slaves is stupid.
Which brings me to another
point. When these folks want to
distance themselves from
02:06
everybody that benefited from
slavery, they love to tell you
about their proud immigrant
background a
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 White conservatives is not considering this child an anchor baby. Education is elevation and let's get into the conservative contradictions of everything they say about immigration. For instance, do y'all know that Melania Trump's visa was questioned in a congressional hearing this January twenty twenty-five. You want to know why? Melania Trump was a college dropout who arrived in the United States on a Einstein visa. Get this though. Reserved. The other visa is reserved for people with extraordinary ability and sustained national international acclaim such as a palitza, Oscar, Olympic Winter, But listen, Baron was born 00:32 March 20th two thousand and 6. Melania became a US citizen July twenty-8th two thousand and 6. Trump wants to end birthright citizenship when his own child is a product of birthright citizenship. We can question a Mexican-American citizen for marrying an undocumented Mexican. Oh yeah, we gotta be able to question when Europeans do the same thing or no. On my mama, think about it. There are 666, 000 illegal immigrants in the United States from European countries. The vast majority of them are white. Yet you don't 01:03 see a single one of them have their children stripped away from them, raided, locked up in cages, and we all know why. You know equal protection under the law has always been a myth and the word immigration has always been a cold word for unwanted color people. They ain't worried about they child being kidnapped. They ain't worried about dropping Baron off at school or in college and him being being kidnapped by masked Asians. Elon Musk worked in United States illegally in 1995 after quit his school job. I feel like if a Haitian immigrant came over here and worked illegally and ended up amassing a whole bunch of wealth they will find and trump wants to end birthright citizen ship? everything to be illegitimate because you started off illegal. Let's pay attention to the language too y'all. So Donald Trump's grandfather was a illegal migrant and a Trojan horse. Which means that Donald Trump's parents is a product of being what they call what a tether baby, a anchor baby, a birthright citizenship. To the people on this side, they do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. So you believe that their only applies to the sentence of slaves is stupid. Which brings me to another point. When these folks want to distance themselves from 02:06 everybody that benefited from slavery, they love to tell you about their proud immigrant background a

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 White conservatives is not considering this child an anchor baby. Education is elevation and let's get into the conservative contradictions of everything they say about immigration. For instance, do y'all know that Melania Trump's visa was questioned in a congressional hearing this January twenty twenty-five. You want to know why? Melania Trump was a college dropout who arrived in the United States on a Einstein visa. Get this though. Reserved. The other visa is reserved for people with extraordinary ability and sustained national international acclaim such as a palitza, Oscar, Olympic Winter, But listen, Baron was born 00:32 March 20th two thousand and 6. Melania became a US citizen July twenty-8th two thousand and 6. Trump wants to end birthright citizenship when his own child is a product of birthright citizenship. We can question a Mexican-American citizen for marrying an undocumented Mexican. Oh yeah, we gotta be able to question when Europeans do the same thing or no. On my mama, think about it. There are 666, 000 illegal immigrants in the United States from European countries. The vast majority of them are white. Yet you don't 01:03 see a single one of them have their children stripped away from them, raided, locked up in cages, and we all know why. You know equal protection under the law has always been a myth and the word immigration has always been a cold word for unwanted color people. They ain't worried about they child being kidnapped. They ain't worried about dropping Baron off at school or in college and him being being kidnapped by masked Asians. Elon Musk worked in United States illegally in 1995 after quit his school job. I feel like if a Haitian immigrant came over here and worked illegally and ended up amassing a whole bunch of wealth they will find and trump wants to end birthright citizen ship? everything to be illegitimate because you started off illegal. Let's pay attention to the language too y'all. So Donald Trump's grandfather was a illegal migrant and a Trojan horse. Which means that Donald Trump's parents is a product of being what they call what a tether baby, a anchor baby, a birthright citizenship. To the people on this side, they do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. So you believe that their only applies to the sentence of slaves is stupid. Which brings me to another point. When these folks want to distance themselves from 02:06 everybody that benefited from slavery, they love to tell you about their proud immigrant background a

Jul 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: 90% of hard drug addicts started with cannabis, claims researcher.
Partially True

Fact Check: 90% of hard drug addicts started with cannabis, claims researcher.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 90% of hard drug addicts started with cannabis, claims researcher.

Jun 29, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Operation Soteria Shield resulted in the seizure of terabytes of child abuse material, reflecting a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago.
Partially True

Fact Check: Operation Soteria Shield resulted in the seizure of terabytes of child abuse material, reflecting a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Operation Soteria Shield resulted in the seizure of terabytes of child abuse material, reflecting a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago.

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The operation is a result of a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago
Partially True

Fact Check: The operation is a result of a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The operation is a result of a collaborative effort that started 10 years ago

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →