02 July 2025

POLITIFACT THIS WEEK, War narratives move fast. Facts take time: Fact-checking fallout from US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, to the extent possible, False war imagery flooded social media after the US attack. Here’s how to tell real footage from fake., What is the economic importance of the Strait of Hormuz?, Fact-checks of the week, Fact-checking falsehoods about Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ and taxes, deficit, Medicaid, Did the VA approve new hospital rules that allow discrimination against Democrats and unmarried veterans?, At fact-checking conference, Brazilian leaders defend social media regulation, Quick links to more fact-checks & reports , Do you smell smoke? Here's your Pants on Fire fact-check of the week: We go back to Iran. This viral video of an Iranian woman in a rainbow hijab was AI-generated! See what else we've rated Pants on Fire this week.

This week: Our work on ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ rhetoric … Easy tips for not falling for fake imagery after US’ Iran attacks … Unpacking the Strait of Hormuz’s economic value … Do new VA hospital rules allow discrimination? … Fact-checkers gather in Rio

A weekly note from the editor-in-chief of

Thank you for being a member. We couldn't do this without you.

Refer a friend

Share PolitiFact

(AP)

Fact-checking fallout from US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, to the extent possible

President Donald Trump took a victory lap Saturday after U.S. armed forces conducted targeted strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities, saying in clear terms that the undercover bombing raid succeeded.

“Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success,” Trump said June 21. “Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Yet the smoke at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan had not cleared, so to speak. So how was Trump certain about total destruction?

Top officials fanned out the next morning, with softer language. Asked about the assessment on ABC “This Week,” Vice President JD Vance said, "Severely damaged versus obliterated — I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially."

Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said at a Sunday morning news conference, “Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.”

As the week went on, Trump lashed out at people questioning his early use of “obliterated.” Speaking from the NATO summit Wednesday morning, Trump said the U.S. strikes were “very, very successful. It was called obliteration.”

With an abundance of unknowns, we examined Trump’s messaging that the U.S. “totally obliterated” the sites.

The answer is too murky for a Truth-O-Meter rating at this time. But even before media outlets reported Tuesday about an initial U.S. intelligence assessment saying the strike has set back Iran's program by months, a wide array of military experts said Trump’s "completely and totally obliterated" characterization was premature.

"It would have been difficult to confidently make such a statement right after the raid," said Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

It’s difficult to have definitive information within a couple of days about damage to the facilities at Fordo, which are located hundreds of feet under the surface and would not be visible on satellite imagery.

Experts said Caine’s more measured take on the bunker-busting bombs was more plausible. As of this writing, the Trump administration has not released evidence for Trump’s conclusion.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Politico on Wednesday that Iran is “much further away” from a nuclear weapon after the undercover raids. “That’s the most important thing to understand — significant, very significant, substantial damage was done to a variety of different components, and we’re just learning more about it.”

Our takeaway? Answers take time.

Read our story by Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson.

Forward

You're a current PolitiFact donor. Thank you so much for supporting our work!

Did Trump violate the War Powers Act when he approved the US military strikes in Iran?

False war imagery flooded social media after the US attack. Here’s how to tell real footage from fake.

Images and videos of explosions, fires, protests and weapons went viral after the U.S. attack — but many of them didn’t show what was actually happening.

Instead, they were generated by artificial intelligence, taken out of context or recorded from video games or flight simulators.

It can be difficult to know at first glance on social media platforms whether fearmongering captions actually fit the photo or video you see; sometimes community notes programs add context, but sometimes they don’t.

Here’s a guide of what to avoid and tips about how to verify conflict imagery.

— Loreben Tuquero

What is the economic importance of the Strait of Hormuz?

In response to strikes, the Iranian parliament approved a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil shipping route that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Iran has previously threatened to close the strait during other conflicts, but has never followed through. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have the final power to close the strait.

It’s unclear exactly what a closure of the Strait of Hormuz might look like. But closing the strait would come at a steep price for Iran — and countries that rely heavily on Iran’s oil exports, such as China. Keep reading.

— Madison Czopek and Ella Moore

Fact-checks of the week

Social Security break? Not exactly. The conservative American Action Network attacked Democrats who voted against the Trump-backed “big, beautiful” bill, saying in an ad that the bill delivers "a tax cut for Social Security recipients.” It’s not that direct, and it’s not the Social Security break Trump promised during his campaign. We rated the ad’s statement Half True.
Medicaid markup for red states? U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida criticized New York’s Medicaid program, saying it gets far more from the federal government than his home state. "Take Florida. I have four million more people who live in my state," Scott said on “Fox News Sunday.” "New York gets $20 billion more for Medicaid than we get in Florida. Why? … Because blue state governors are gaming the system to take care of illegal immigrants and adults without chronic illness.” We rated Scott’s statement Mostly False. New York extends Medicaid benefits to some undocumented immigrants: children and pregnant people and people over age 65. But Medicaid coverage for these groups is supported by state funds not by any federal funds. He was correct that New York, unlike Florida, expanded Medicaid under a provision in the Affordable Care Act to cover some adults without chronic illness; but it is partially paid for with federal funds.

Fact-checking falsehoods about Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ and taxes, deficit, Medicaid

Republican leaders tout Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill" as a way to prevent a 68% tax increase, rein in the deficit and maintain current levels of food assistance for low-income people.

The trouble: All of those supposed selling points lack factual basis.

The tax and spending legislation — which passed the House on May 22 — could receive a Senate vote this week and can be passed by a simple majority. Trump has said he wants it on his desk by July 4, directing senators in a June 24 Truth Social post to "lock yourself in a room if you must.”

With so many Trump priorities packed into the bill, politicians and social media users have commented at length about elements of the bill.

Here are some of their false and misleading statements.

— Amy Sherman, Louis Jacobson and Loreben Tuquero

Did the VA approve new hospital rules that allow discrimination against Democrats and unmarried veterans?

As veterans navigate changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Trump administration, a story from British newspaper The Guardian said the Department of Veterans Affairs had adopted changes that could allow hospitals to refuse treatment to some veterans.

"‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: New rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans," the story’s original headline read.

The VA had changed its bylaws and eliminated previous discrimination protections for patients and employees based on marital status and political affiliation.

The story spread rapidly on social media and prompted condemnation from Democratic elected officials. But members of the Trump administration called the story "false" and "ridiculous."

The Guardian has since updated its story to include comments from the VA and rewrote the headline to read, "VA hospitals remove politics and marital status from guidelines protecting patients from discrimination." The story also notes the VA’s statements that federal law and a 2013 policy directive "will continue to protect patients from discrimination despite the redactions in its bylaws."

Here’s what happened.

— Grace Abels

At fact-checking conference, Brazilian leaders defend social media regulation

I’m writing this email from GlobalFact, an annual summit of world fact-checking representatives that kicked off Wednesday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Angie Drobnic Holan, director of Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network and former PolitiFact editor, opened the 12th summit by acknowledging the challenging year for fact-checking journalists and calling on organizations to meet the moment.

“The future of informed democracy rests on our ability to evolve methods while holding firm to values,” she said. “We must develop engaging approaches to fact-checking that draw people in. We must seize opportunities to make truth compelling and accessible. And we must move beyond defensive rhetoric to emphasize our true purpose: supporting the public and promoting human knowledge.”

Holan welcomed three Brazilian officials — Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes; Cármen Lúcia, Superior Electoral Court president; and Attorney General Jorge Messias — who are considered the country’s top leaders against online disinformation. They called for regulating social media platforms. (De Moraes and Lúcia appeared virtually.)

“We must always repeat that what is not allowed in the real world is not allowed in the digital world,” said De Moraes. He led an investigation into former Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro and temporarily banned X from operating in the country for refusing to comply with court orders.

Lúcia compared regulating disinformation on social media platforms with creating laws around driving. “Your freedom does not mean to be free to go the wrong way and crash into another car and kill another driver,” Lúcia said.

PolitiFact Staff Writer Maria Ramirez Uribe covered the discussion for Poynter.org. We’ll have more news out of GlobalFact for you to read next week.

Quick links to more fact-checks & reports

Viral photo shows a trailblazing Chilean naval pilot, not an Israeli pilot captured by Iran.
No proof Gov. Tim Walz posted, or deleted posts, about Minnesota shooting suspect Vance Boelter.
From The 19th: The future of federal abortion data collection is unclear.
Viral video claims to show fire from Israel-Iran war, but it’s from an abandoned England college.
From the MAGA-Meter: Trump extends TikTok sale deadline for a third time.

Do you smell smoke?

Here's your Pants on Fire fact-check of the week:
We go back to Iran. This viral video of an Iranian woman in a rainbow hijab was AI-generated!

See what else we've rated Pants on Fire this week.

Coming soon to PolitiFact.com: stories about the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility planned in the Florida Everglades and a fact-check about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s political views.

Thanks for reading!

Katie Sanders
PolitiFact Editor-in-Chief

Send this link to your friends so they can sign up for this email!

NORTON META TAG