TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Does MAGA make up stories ?

Fact Check: Does MAGA make up stories ?

April 15, 2025•by TruthOrFake
✓
VERDICT
Mostly True

# Does MAGA Make Up Stories? ## Introduction The claim that supporters of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, particularly those aligned ...

Does MAGA Make Up Stories?

Introduction

The claim that supporters of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, particularly those aligned with former President Donald Trump, engage in fabricating stories has gained traction in political discourse. This assertion is often supported by various instances of misinformation linked to MAGA figures and events. However, the validity of this claim requires a thorough examination of the evidence and context surrounding it.

What We Know

  1. Misinformation from MAGA Figures: A report from the Washington Post highlights a range of false and dubious claims made by Trump and his allies, suggesting a pattern of misinformation associated with the MAGA movement 1.

  2. Fact-Checking Specific Claims: The New York Times has documented misleading statements made by Trump during speeches, including claims about immigration and election integrity, which have been fact-checked and found to be inaccurate 2.

  3. Viral Content Misrepresentation: A viral video featuring a confrontation involving a person wearing a MAGA hat was later revealed to be a scripted skit, not a genuine interaction, indicating a potential for misleading portrayals associated with MAGA imagery 3.

  4. Baseless Claims Linking MAGA to Wildfires: A claim that linked MAGA supporters to the Los Angeles wildfires was debunked by multiple fact-checking organizations, confirming that there was no evidence to support such assertions 49.

  5. Fact-Checking Resources: Websites like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org regularly evaluate claims made by MAGA figures, providing a repository of information on the accuracy of various statements 56.

Analysis

The evidence surrounding the claim that MAGA supporters fabricate stories is multifaceted and requires careful scrutiny:

  • Source Reliability: The Washington Post and New York Times are established news organizations known for their journalistic standards, making their reports on misinformation credible 12. However, it is essential to consider potential biases; both outlets have been criticized by some conservative commentators for perceived liberal bias.

  • Misinformation Patterns: The instances cited, such as the viral skit and the false wildfire claims, illustrate a broader trend of misinformation that can be traced back to MAGA supporters. However, it is crucial to differentiate between isolated incidents and a systemic issue within the movement. The viral nature of social media can amplify misleading content, regardless of the political affiliation of those involved.

  • Fact-Checking Limitations: While fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org provide valuable insights, they may also face criticism for bias, particularly from those who feel targeted by their assessments 8. The perception of bias can influence how claims are received by different audiences.

  • Need for Context: Understanding the motivations behind the dissemination of misinformation is essential. Factors such as political allegiance, media consumption habits, and social media dynamics play significant roles in how stories are created and shared.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly True

The claim that MAGA supporters engage in fabricating stories is supported by a variety of evidence, including documented instances of misinformation from prominent figures within the movement and misleading portrayals in viral media. Reports from reputable sources like the Washington Post and New York Times lend credibility to the assertion that there is a pattern of misinformation associated with MAGA. However, it is important to recognize that not all claims made by MAGA supporters are fabricated, and the context of each situation matters significantly.

The conclusion of "Mostly True" reflects the complexity of the issue; while there are clear examples of misinformation, the extent to which this behavior is systemic within the movement remains uncertain. Additionally, the potential biases of fact-checking organizations and the influence of social media dynamics complicate the narrative.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the broader context when assessing claims related to political movements and misinformation.

Sources

  1. Washington Post. "24 hours of MAGA misinformation." Link
  2. New York Times. "Fact-Checking Trump's Speech at the Justice Department." Link
  3. USA TODAY. "Clip of doctor yelling at MAGA man created as skit | Fact check." Link
  4. USA TODAY. "Claim linking LA wildfires to MAGA supporters is baseless | Fact check." Link
  5. PolitiFact. "Latest Fact-checks on MAGA Inc." Link
  6. FactCheck.org. "FactChecking Trump's MAGA Rally." Link
  7. FactCheck.org. "Posts Target Trump With False Claim on MAGA Hats." Link
  8. CNN. "Fact-checkers, targeted by MAGA loyalists, blast ..." Link
  9. Check Your Fact. "FACT CHECK: Viral Threads Post Falsely Links 'MAGA ...". Link
  10. Snopes. "Snopes.com | The definitive fact-checking site and reference ..." 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

🔍
Mostly True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: - Pierre Poilievre voted against raising the minimum wage - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the First Home Savings Account program - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against $10 a day childcare - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the children’s food programs at school - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the child benefit - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against dental care for kids - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against Covid relief - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against middle class tax cuts - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the Old Age Security Supplement - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the Guaranteed Income Supplement - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted to ban abortions - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted AGAINST housing initiatives - Poilievre voted against initiatives to make housing affordable and address Canada’s housing crisis in 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2014 when Conservatives were in power; and again in 2018 and 2019 as a member of the official opposition. - Pierre Poilievre voted to raise the retirement age - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted for scabs - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against the environment nearly 400 times - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre refused security clearance - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against same-sex marriage (2005) - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted to cancel school lunch programs for children experiencing poverty - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted for Bill C377 - an attack on unions - demanding access to the private banking info of union leaders - Pierre Poilievre vowed to "wield the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE " thereby taking our charter rights away - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre publicly stated that he would not support Pharmacare and Dentacare (at least twice) - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre supplied coffee and donuts to the Trucker Convoy who were funded by MAGA and Russia - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre scapegoated Trudeau for causing inflation, while inflation was global and Canada had one of the lowest rates in the world - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre scapegoated Trudeau for causing the interest rate hikes, while Trudeau has zero power or influence over the Bank of Canada - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre scapegoated Trudeau by falsely claiming that the air pollution fines are the main driver of inflation in Canada, even though he KNOWS that that is completely false and was proven so - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre publicly stated that he will defund the CBC - TRUE PLUS, Pierre Poilievre publicly stated - "Canada's Aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need compensation for abuse suffered in residential schools".

Detailed fact-check analysis of: - Pierre Poilievre voted against raising the minimum wage - TRUE - Pierre Poilievre voted against t...

Apr 9, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Right-wing sources are consistently less credible and make claims that go against the scientific con...
Mostly True

Fact Check: Right-wing sources are consistently less credible and make claims that go against the scientific con...

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Right-wing sources are consistently less credible and make claims that go against the scientific con...

May 30, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: MAGA is a waste of money and space
Mostly True

Fact Check: MAGA is a waste of money and space

Detailed fact-check analysis of: MAGA is a waste of money and space

Apr 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: MAGA is better for USA
Mostly False

Fact Check: MAGA is better for USA

Detailed fact-check analysis of: MAGA is better for USA

May 24, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Does MAGA make up stories ? | TruthOrFake Blog