Tag: Snopes News

Don’t believe claim Trump called Warren Buffett, other public figures ‘offenders of Jesus’

June 14, 2026

Had the claims been true, Trump would have offended celebrities, royals and religious heads, amo …

Read More

Yes, Vance’s security detail raised water level of Ohio river ahead of boating trip. Here’s context

Aug. 7, 2025

Officials said they raised the water level to ensure the safety of Secret Service personnel.

Read More

Did Netanyahu once say, ‘America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry’? There’s no proof

June 9, 2026

The alleged quote from Israel’s prime minister has repeatedly resurfaced online since 2015, but …

Read More

Claim:

Videos authentically show Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wearing a Palestinian flag at a United Nations event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Rating:

In September 2026, as the United Nations held its annual meeting in New York, a video (archived) circulated online that social media users claimed showed Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wearing a Palestinian flag at a United Nations event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

One X user shared the video, writing:  

BREAKING:📷  
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni:
“I am a woman and also a mother. 
I cannot stand with someone who kills innocent children.”  
The brave woman continued to walk around wearing a Palestinian flag around her neck in front of Netanyahu.

The same video also circulated elsewhere on X (archived, archived).

Snopes previously investigated the footage in May 2026. We found then it was fake.

The clip came from a TikTok account (archived) that created several fake videos of the same scenario and contained visual signs of artificial intelligence software.

The TikTok user marked some of these videos as AI-generated, though the label was missing from some versions of the footage that spread widely on other platforms. We confirmed the video was an AI-generated fake because it showed an incorrectly rendered Palestinian flag at the eight-second mark. 

There’s no record of Netanyahu and Meloni attending the same U.N. event in 2026 either. According to the reputable photo agency Getty Images, the two last met in March 2023 in Rome. Meloni did not attend the annual meeting in September 2026.

Meloni targeted by AI and deepfakes

It was unclear why the TikTok account in question decided to create a fake video of Meloni suggesting she had a poor relationship with Netanyahu.

In August 2025, Meloni criticized the Israeli military’s response to the 2023 Hamas attacks as “beyond the principle of proportionality.” In April 2026, she announced Italy would not renew a defense agreement with Israel. She reportedly did not specify a reason beyond referring to “the current situation.”

Meloni wrote (archived) on X on May 5, 2026, that she was the subject of several popular AI-generated photos, including one that appeared to show her in underwear. 

The Italian prime minister wrote, “Deepfakes are a dangerous tool, because they can deceive, manipulate, and strike anyone. I can defend myself. Many others cannot.”

“Deepfake” is an umbrella term for AI-generated content. This content can be generated by altering existing, authentic material or created from scratch. According to the Alan Turing Institute, the U.K.’s national institute for data science and AI, deepfakes are often created “with the intention to deceive or entertain viewers.”

For further reading, Snopes routinely debunks fake or deepfake content.

Sources

Boak, Josh. “Trump 50% Tariffs Target Canadian Autos, Alcohol and Cheese.” AP News, 20 July 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-canada-50-tariff-autos-alcohol-cheese-ca268ef24992b16695954c4c2e5eae6a. Accessed 22 Sept. 2026.

Gillies, Rob. “Canada-US Trade War Further Ruptures a Historic Alliance.” AP News, 22 Aug. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/canada-us-trade-war-trump-carney-tariffs-4d18583fe52134ca8550652ad9772d2c. Accessed 22 Sept. 2026.

Gillies, Rob. “Trump Widens Trade War with Canada beyond Tariffs. Here’s What to Know.” AP News, 9 Sept. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/canada-trump-carney-trade-war-tariffs-4620ffb5ecc029322217207fa6758431.

—. “Mark Carney Signals Canada May Hold off on New Retaliation Against Donald Trump Trade Measures.” AP News, 10 Sept. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-canada-tariffs-ford-carney-700d1eaad7f1aa87f1d7875222691b35. Accessed 22 Sept. 2026.

Pettypiece, Shannon. “Trump Puts Tariffs on Thousands of Goods From Canada and Mexico, Risking Higher Prices.” NBC News, 4 Mar. 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/trump-puts-tariffs-thousands-goods-canada-mexico-risking-higher-prices-rcna194542. Accessed 22 Sept. 2026.

—. “Trump Slaps Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, Risking Higher Prices for U.S. Consumers.” NBC News, Feb. 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-slaps-tariffs-canada-mexico-china-risking-higher-prices-us-consu-rcna190185. Accessed 22 Sept. 2026.

CBSNews.com, Caitlin Yilek Politics Reporter Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at, et al. Trump Gives Primetime Speech on Elections as White House Alleges Chinese Access to Voter Data. 17 July 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-primetime-speech-elections-china/.

Christensen, Laerke. “Image Claiming to Show Trump with Young Girl during China Visit Is Fake. Here’s Proof.” Snopes, 19 May 2026, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/trump-girl-gift-china-visit/.

———. “No, China Didn’t ‘cancel’ US Beef amid Tariffs Tit-for-Tat.” Snopes, 14 Mar. 2025, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/china-cancels-us-beef/.

Deng, Rae. “Did Canada Import Chinese Steel and Resell It to US to Avoid Tariffs? What We Know.” Snopes, 4 Sept. 2026, https://www.snopes.com//news/2026/09/04/canada-chinese-steel-us-tariffs/.

———. “Trump Posted Conservative Radio Host’s Derogatory Statement about People of India, China.” Snopes, 24 Apr. 2026, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/trump-people-india-china-post/.

———. “Unpacking Claim Trump Admin Dumped Gifts from China before Leaving Country.” Snopes, 18 May 2026, https://www.snopes.com//news/2026/05/18/trump-dumped-gifts-china/.

Esposito, Joey. “Talarico Voted against Bill Meant to Protect Texas Land from Chinese Interests. Here’s Why.” Snopes, 3 Sept. 2026, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/talarico-china-texas-land-bill/.

Ibrahim, Nur. “Fake Image Shows Trump, Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang with Fists up in Front of CCP Flag.” Snopes, 15 May 2026, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/trump-musk-huang-fists-up/.

In Their Own Words: Officials Refuting False Claims of Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/their-own-words-officials-refuting-false-claims-voter-fraud. Accessed 24 July 2026.

Izzo, Jack. “Chinese Investors Are Buying Farmland Around US Military Bases?” Snopes, 23 July 2024, https://www.snopes.com//news/2024/07/23/chinese-farmland-military-bases/.

Kasprak, Alex. “What We Know About Alleged ‘Secret Affair’ Walz Had with Chinese Communist Party Official’s Daughter.” Snopes, 4 Nov. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//news/2024/11/04/walz-jenna-wang-ccp/.

———. “Yes, Biden Commuted Sentences of Chinese Spies and Sex Offender. Here’s What Else We Found.” Snopes, 21 Dec. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/biden-pardon-chinese-spies-for-prisoner-swap/.

MADHANI, AAMER, et al. “Trump Hails Deep Friendship with Xi as China’s Leader Urges ‘Healthy’ Competition between 2 Powers.” The Associated Press, 24 Sept. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-xi-china-state-visit-e21305f04e21bae2c083282a8bfc8321.

Moseley, Terry. “Trump Revives 2020 Election Meddling Allegations. Here’s What Followed.” USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2026/07/16/trump-2020-election-challenge-explained/90936765007/. Accessed 24 July 2026.

Pavlounis, Zachary. “Trump Says These Documents Prove His False Claims of Election Fraud. Here’s What They Really Say.” The Associated Press, 17 July 2026, https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2026/trump-says-these-documents-prove-his-false-claims-of-election-fraud-heres-what-they-really-say/.

PerryCook, Taija. “Examining Trump’s Post about Putin, Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping Conspiring against the US.” Snopes, 3 Sept. 2025, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/trump-post-putin-kim-jong-un/.

Rascouët-Paz, Anna. “Examining Claim Trump Accepted $2B Bribe to Sell Highly Sensitive AI Chips to UAE, China.” Snopes, 30 Sept. 2025, https://www.snopes.com//news/2025/09/30/trump-bribe-2-billion-uae-china/.

———. “Trump Reportedly Threatened to ‘bomb the [Expletive] out of Moscow’ and Beijing. Here’s Context.” Snopes, 11 July 2025, https://www.snopes.com//news/2025/07/11/trump-bomb-moscow-beijing/.

———. “US Trade Deficit with China Smallest Since 2010?” Snopes, 1 July 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/us-trade-deficit-with-china-smallest-since-2010/.

Trump Alleges China Meddled in 2020 Election and Questions Voting Security Ahead of Midterms. 17 July 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2k9wvv5wyo.

US-China Trade War | PIIE. 25 Aug. 2026, https://www.piie.com/research/trade-investment/us-china-trade-war.

Claim:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel “is equal to 40,000 innocent Americans slaughtered in less than 24 hours. That’s 16 times 9/11. Sixteen 9/11s that occurred not very far from here.”

Rating:

On Sept. 24, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly, where many delegates walked out at the beginning of his speech. Following his speech, many people online attributed various quotes to Netanyahu, with some claiming he said Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, was equivalent to “sixteen 9/11s.”

According to numerous posts shared on Instagram (archived), X and Facebook, Netanyahu said the Oct. 7 attacks were “equal to 40,000 innocent Americans slaughtered in less than 24 hours. That’s 16 times 9/11 — 16 9/11s.”

The quote was correctly attributed to Netanyahu. He was comparing the number of Israeli casualties in the Oct. 7 attacks to 9/11 deaths relative to both countries’ populations.

During his speech, Netanyahu referred to the number of people killed in Hamas’ attack on Israel before drawing the comparison to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said (emphasis ours):

These Hamas monsters, they slaughtered Holocaust survivors. They burned babies alive in front of their parents. They beheaded our men. They brutally raped our women and then they murdered them.

Altogether, they slaughtered 1,200 Israelis that day.

I want to give you an idea of what this means for a country of 10 million. Proportionately, this is equal to 40,000 innocent Americans slaughtered in less than 24 hours. That’s 16 times 9/11. Sixteen 9/11s that occurred not very far from here.

Netanyahu said the above at the 11:28 mark in the video below:

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani did not address the 9/11 comparison, but accused Netanyahu of repeating “baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians,” the New York Times reported. 

As Netanyahu approached the stage for his speech, a mixture of boos and cheers erupted and many delegates staged a mass walkout. Netanyahu defended Israel’s attack on Iran and denied accusations of committing genocide in Gaza. 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered a prerecorded speech as the United States denied him a visa to attend the UNGA. Abbas said Palestinians were living through one of the most dangerous periods in their history and that Israel was engaging in “killing, destruction, starvation, attempts at displacement, as well as a genocidal war that has created an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.” He called Israel’s actions a “malicious colonial scheme aimed at making the lives of Palestinians more difficult in their homeland and forcing them to leave it.”

For further reading, Snopes has reported on many claims about Netanyahu. 

Sources

A rumor spread in September 2026 that U.S. President Donald Trump was on track to save the United States billions of dollars by invoking a supposedly unenforced law to deny certain immigrants entry into the country. 

Social media posts (archived) claimed that Trump was beginning to enforce the Immigration Act of 1882, which denies entry to anyone who is a “convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of themselves without becoming a public charge.” These posts alleged the enforcement measures were expected to kick 5.6 million migrants off government welfare programs and save the U.S. government $13 billion a year. 

The claim was misleading for multiple reasons. 

Trump was not “invoking a long-unenforced law.” Rather, his administration changed the government’s interpretation of the Immigration Act of 1882’s “public charge” language to further restrict which immigrants can enter the country or receive permanent residency. The new rule, which went into effect on Sept. 18, 2026, applies to immigrants based on their use of public benefits.

It’s true the Department of Homeland Security estimated the policy change will save federal and state governments $13.05 billion per year, supposedly affecting an estimated 1.3 million individuals, not 5.6 million. (It’s possible the “5.6 million” number in social media posts originated from a misreading of an analysis about the rule’s impact on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.)

However, the true impact of the rule is unknown. 

Most noncitizens who do not have permanent resident status are not eligible for many federal assistance programs, which means the rule generally targets people seeking green cards for permanent residency. 

Immigration and family policy experts fear the change could have far-reaching consequences for immigrant families and local communities. A group of Democratic-led cities and states have filed two separate lawsuits against the rule, arguing it will drive up administrative costs, change states’ funding for public benefits and pressure people into forgoing legal access to benefits. 

We asked for the DHS’ response to those accusations, and we await a reply. Because the courts have not yet ruled in those cases as of this writing, it’s unclear if the administration’s interpretation of the Immigration Act of 1882 is lawful and the DHS can fully implement it.

Considering that major unknown, we did not put a rating on this claim.

Here’s what you should know. 

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the rule largely doesn’t apply to immigrants who apply for green cards due to a humanitarian status like asylum. Meanwhile, it does apply to immigrants who are relatives of U.S. citizens, employed in the country and working with the American military, among others.

The U.S. government previously stated that immigrants in the latter groups can be denied entry or legal permanent residency based on certain guidelines to determine whether they are a “public charge” — a label based on people’s use of government assistance or the perceived possibility they’ll need it in the future.

When Congress first used the term “public charge” in the Immigration Act of 1882, many social safety net programs that exist today were not around, as Kunal Parker, a historian at the University of Miami School of Law, told NPR in 2019.

In turn, federal officials have reconsidered how to enforce and define the 1882 provision.

In 1999, a memo by the Department of Justice formally defined “public charge” as a person “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” as demonstrated by their use of public cash assistance, like Supplemental Security Income through Social Security, or long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense. (See Page 1, under “Definition of ‘Public Charge,’” in the memo.)

The memo stated: “Officers should not place any weight on the receipt of non-cash public benefits (other than institutionalization) or the receipt of cash benefits for purposes other than for income maintenance.”

That meant immigration officers could not consider benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and free or reduced school lunches as disqualifying factors for green cards (unless the person was in, or likely to need, a public institution for long-term care).

In 2019, the first Trump administration issued a new rule that redefined “public charge” to include immigrants who receive “one or more public benefits,” including some types of Medicaid, housing assistance and other non-cash benefits, “for more than 12 months” in total within any 36-month period. 

The courts struck down that rule after a lengthy legal battle.

In 2022, former President Joe Biden issued a new policy that closely aligned with the 1999 memo’s definition of “public charge.” 

Trump admin’s 2026 rule

In July 2026, the Trump administration announced its new rule that rescinded Biden’s 2022 guidelines. The new rule eliminated “public charge regulations in their entirety” to give “broad discretionary authority to officers,” as outlined by the government’s Federal Register.

“DHS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves,” DHS said in a statement on X. “We are reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources, and ending policies that encouraged dependency on hard-working American taxpayers.”

In other words, the Trump administration removed the existing guidelines to determine whether someone is a “public charge” and instead told immigration officers to use their own judgment to determine who gets the label. Here’s an excerpt from the DHS rule: 

While officers will not have a list of “excluded” benefits to consider, officers will have the authority and discretion to consider all circumstances surrounding receipt of any one or more public benefits and determine whether the alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge taking into account the statutory factors and applicable precedent. The receipt of public benefits is but one consideration in the totality of the circumstances.

The Trump administration’s full July rule is available on the government’s Federal Register website. Under “Purpose of the Regulatory Action,” DHS states that officers may consider an immigrant’s use of “means-tested public benefits” (public benefits based on a person’s need for them); “any other individualized case-specific factors and circumstances,” and “any empirical data relevant to an alien’s self-sufficiency.”

“Using good judgment and discretion, officers will more accurately assess an alien’s likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge, in the totality of the circumstances, as Congress intended,” the rule says.

According to the DHS rule, officers will not consider benefits used by an applicant’s household members, including non-relative dependents. However, officers will consider the applicant’s “financial status” that led to a household member” needing to apply for or receive those benefits.”

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2026, a rumor spread that during his speech, he said the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. 

Several users on X made the claim (archived), expressing disbelief using a supposed video clip of the speech of Netanyahu saying “America deserved 9/11” as he shook his finger in the air.

While the clip was authentic, meaning not generated with artificial intelligence or digitally altered, it omits critical context from Netanyahu’s full remarks. He was not expressing his personal belief when he said those words. A longer video showed he was quoting Hasan Piker, a left-leaning influencer, who did say “America deserved 9/11” during a livestream in 2019. We’ve left this claim unrated to account for those nuances.

At the 27:10 mark in the video, Netanyahu addressed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, saying Mamdani was antisemitic and he and Piker were friends. As he did so, he quoted Piker (emphasis ours):

So to all those that are spreading these lies about my country and about our brave soldiers, whether they sit in this hall or in the office of the antisemitic mayor of New York, I say this: Shame on you. Shame on you for distorting the facts. Shame on you for inverting victim and aggressor. Shame on you for spitting in the face of truth. 

Mr. Mamdani, since you were elected mayor of this city, many Jews no longer feel safe in New York. They talk to me. They tell me, “This isn’t the city we remember. It changed so quickly.” 

Now it’s no wonder. You praise criminals convicted of supporting Hamas. You count as friends people like Hasan Piker, who said “America deserved 9/11. America deserved 9/11.” Some friends you have. 

You invite into your home a Palestinian journalist who filmed Hamas terrorists beating and torturing Israeli hostages, and later admitted that he refused to publish the videos in order to protect, you guessed it, the terrorists. Your wife liked a post praising the Oct. 7 massacre. She liked another post saying Tel Aviv shouldn’t exist.

It is true that Piker said these words in August 2019 while live-streaming on Twitch:

“America deserved 9/11, dude,” he said. “F*** it. I’m saying it.”

For further reading, this is not the first time Snopes has investigated claims attributing this quote to someone other than Piker. In August 2026, we found U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Democrat, hadn’t expressed the belief that the U.S. deserved 9/11.

Claim:

The U.S. was the only opposing nation when the United Nations passed a resolution by a vote of 37-1 to promote women’s equality.

Rating:

What’s True

The U.S. was the only nation to vote against the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women’s agreed conclusions during the commission’s 70th session in March 2026. Thirty-seven nations voted in favor of the agreed conclusions.

What’s False

Agreed conclusions are recommendations for member states to work towards. They are not the same as U.N. resolutions. Also, while the claim circulated widely during the September 2026 81st session of the U.N. General Assembly, the vote in question occurred during a different session months earlier.

In September 2026, as delegations gathered for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, a claim (archived) circulated online that the U.S. was the only opposing nation when the U.N. passed a resolution by a vote of 37-1 to promote women’s equality.  

One Facebook user who shared the claim wrote, “The UN passed a resolution by a vote of 37-1 promoting women’s equality. The one opposing vote… the United States. Remember this.”

The claim also circulated on X (archived) and Threads (archived). Snopes readers contacted us, asking if the claim was true.

The claim was mostly true, but posts were misleading in two important ways. First, the vote in question did not take place in September 2026 but months earlier, in March. Second, the vote in question was not a resolution but a different type of procedure called an agreed conclusion.

In March 2026, the U.S. was the only opposing party in a 37-1 vote to adopt the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women’s agreed conclusions for its 70th session.

The CSW exists to promote “gender equality, the rights and the empowerment of women.” The U.S. opposed its agreed conclusions, meaning recommendations for member states to work towards, that sought to ensure and strengthen access to justice for women and girls.

Agreed conclusions are not the same as U.N. resolutions, which are “formal expressions of the opinion or will of UN organs.” The CSW also adopts resolutions in a separate process from agreed conclusions. 

What the US voted against

The agreed conclusions for the CSW’s 70th session were titled, “Ensuring and strengthening access to justice for all women and girls, including by promoting inclusive and equitable legal systems, eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices, and addressing structural barriers.”

The document “urged” governments and other bodies to take a series of actions to “strengthen access to justice for all women and girls by 2030, while recognizing the specific needs of women and girls” (Page 3).

The document included broad, wide-ranging recommendations, such as (Page 3):

(b) Take all measures necessary to ensure that every woman and girl can seek and obtain an effective remedy from competent, independent and impartial justice institutions when their rights are violated, without discrimination of any kind;

It also included more specific obligations, such as (Page 6): 

(r) Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences;

According to the U.N.’s live coverage of the March 9 discussion and vote on the agreed conclusions, the U.S. delegation voted against the document in part because of its language about access to sexual and reproductive health.

U.N. Ambassador Dan Negrea said at the time that his delegation could not support a text that included:

… ambiguous language promoting gender ideology, vague unqualified commitments to sexual and reproductive health that can be interpreted as implying abortion rights, censorship language or broad language on regulation of AI.

Two months before the 70th session of the CSW, in January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from U.N. Women, the CSW’s parent entity, through an executive order.

Negrea noted this withdrawal during the CSW session, saying that the U.S. thought U.N. Women “engaged in recklessly promoting gender ideology and abortion.”

The U.N. reported that the agreed conclusions passed by 37-1. The U.S. was the only opposing vote and six countries abstained.

Later on in the CSW session, the U.S. did vote against a resolution, titled, “Women, the girl child and HIV and AIDS” that called upon governments to “intensify efforts to reduce the particularly high levels of HIV infection among women and girls” (Page 4).

Forty-three nations voted in favor of the resolution and the U.S. was the only nation to vote against it. The U.N. representative for the U.S. reportedly voted against the resolution due to concerns about “terms and formulations relating to sexual and reproductive health.”

For further reading, Snopes has previously reported on other claims about the United Nations.

Sources