In the tumultuous landscape of the tech industry, few figures generate as much conversation as Elon Musk. Recently, Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway took a deep dive into the ripple effects of Musk’s controversial presence and actions, particularly as they relate to Tesla’s declining performance in both stock price and sales. Their discussion, aired on the popular YouTube channel “Pivot,” raises pertinent questions about the intersection of celebrity culture and corporate accountability. In this blog post, we will fact-check key assertions made during their conversation, providing clarity on the verifiable aspects of both Musk’s involvement in high-profile events and the broader implications for Tesla. As we explore these assertions, let’s sift through the noise to uncover the accurate narratives shaping the future of this electric vehicle pioneer.

All information as of 03/04/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

More than 100 countries offer golden visas to wealthy investors and individuals, including Australia, Greece, Italy, and Spain.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: More Than 100 Countries Offer Golden Visas

The claim that more than 100 countries offer golden visas to wealthy investors and individuals, including Australia, Greece, Italy, and Spain, can be evaluated based on available data and reports from reputable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Henley & Partners**: This advisory firm, which specializes in residence and citizenship by investment programs, states that more than 100 countries around the world offer or have offered "golden visas" to wealthy individuals and investors. This list includes countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Greece, Malta, Australia, Canada, and Italy[2][5].

2. **Global Coverage**: Golden visa programs are widespread globally, with many countries using them as a tool to attract foreign investment. These programs often involve real estate purchases, financial investments, or job creation[1][2].

### Specific Countries Mentioned

– **Australia**: While not explicitly listed in some sources, Australia has been mentioned alongside other countries offering similar investment programs[5]. However, specific details about an Australian golden visa program are not widely documented in the provided sources.

– **Greece**: Greece offers a golden visa program that provides permanent residency through real estate purchases of at least €250,000, with potential citizenship after seven years[1][4].

– **Italy**: Italy has an investor visa program, often referred to in the context of golden visas, which allows residency in exchange for investments starting at €250,000[4].

– **Spain**: Spain's golden visa program offers residency for investments of at least €500,000 in real estate, leading to permanent residency after five years and citizenship after ten years[1][4]. However, there have been reports of changes and criticisms regarding this program[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that more than 100 countries offer golden visas is supported by statements from Henley & Partners and the general prevalence of such programs globally[2][5]. However, the specific inclusion of Australia in this list might require further verification, as detailed information about an Australian golden visa program is not readily available in the provided sources. Greece, Italy, and Spain are confirmed to have programs that align with the concept of golden visas[1][4].

In summary, while the claim about the number of countries offering golden visas is generally accurate, the specific details regarding Australia's participation might need additional confirmation.

Citations

Claim

The price point for the new gold card at 5 million may only appeal to a certain demographic of wealthy individuals.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The Price Point of the Trump Gold Card

The claim that the $5 million price point for the Trump Gold Card may only appeal to a certain demographic of wealthy individuals can be evaluated through analyses of immigration trends and wealth demographics.

### Economic Implications and Demographic Appeal

1. **High Price Point**: The proposed Trump Gold Card visa program requires a $5 million investment, significantly higher than existing investor visa programs like the EB-5, which requires investments between $800,000 and $1.05 million[2][4]. This substantial increase in the investment threshold positions the Gold Card as one of the most expensive residency-by-investment options globally[2].

2. **Targeted Demographic**: The high price point of the Gold Card is likely to appeal primarily to ultra-wealthy global investors. This demographic includes individuals who can afford such a significant investment and are seeking residency or citizenship in the U.S. for strategic reasons, such as business opportunities, tax planning, or lifestyle flexibility[2][4].

3. **Comparison with Other Programs**: Other countries offer similar investor visa programs at lower price points. For example, Portugal's Golden Visa program starts at €500,000, and Greece offers residency for property purchases of €250,000[2]. These more affordable options might attract a broader range of investors, potentially limiting the appeal of the Trump Gold Card to those who specifically value U.S. residency and its associated economic benefits[2].

4. **Economic and Social Implications**: The Gold Card program could exacerbate economic inequality within the immigration system by prioritizing wealth over other selection criteria like family ties or specialized skills[2]. This could lead to a two-tiered immigration system where wealthier individuals have faster and more privileged access to residency and citizenship[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that the $5 million price point for the Trump Gold Card may only appeal to a certain demographic of wealthy individuals is supported by evidence. The high investment requirement targets ultra-wealthy individuals seeking U.S. residency, potentially limiting its appeal compared to more affordable options available in other countries[2][4]. The program's focus on attracting substantial capital could reshape immigration patterns but also raises concerns about economic inequality and the concentration of benefits among affluent groups[2][4].

Citations

Claim

The heads of HR and recruiting at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are likely to benefit from Bezos's changes to The Washington Post.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Impact of Bezos's Changes on HR and Recruiting at The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times

The claim suggests that the heads of HR and recruiting at **The Wall Street Journal** and **The New York Times** might benefit from Jeff Bezos's changes to **The Washington Post**. This implies a potential shift in talent dynamics within the journalism market. To assess this claim, we need to consider how changes in editorial policies at one major media outlet might influence hiring trends or talent movements across the industry.

### Bezos's Changes at The Washington Post

Jeff Bezos recently announced that **The Washington Post**'s opinion section will focus on supporting personal liberties and free markets, signaling a more right-leaning editorial stance[1][2]. This shift could lead to a change in the types of journalists and writers the Post attracts or retains, potentially affecting the broader journalism market.

### Potential Impact on Talent Dynamics

1. **Talent Movement**: If **The Washington Post** becomes more aligned with pro-free-market views, journalists who do not align with these views might seek opportunities elsewhere, such as **The Wall Street Journal** or **The New York Times**. Conversely, those who support these views might be attracted to the Post, potentially creating a talent flow between these outlets.

2. **Hiring Trends**: The heads of HR and recruiting at other major newspapers might benefit from this shift by attracting talent that no longer fits the Post's new editorial stance. However, there is no direct evidence to suggest that these changes would immediately benefit HR and recruiting teams at **The Wall Street Journal** and **The New York Times**.

### Evidence and Analysis

– **Current Coverage and Reaction**: The reaction from journalists like Jeff Stein at **The Washington Post** indicates that some journalists are concerned about the potential encroachment on editorial independence, but there is no clear indication that this will lead to a significant talent exodus or influx at other outlets[1].

– **Industry Dynamics**: The journalism industry is highly competitive, and talent movements are common. However, these movements are often driven by factors such as job security, editorial freedom, and career advancement opportunities rather than solely by changes in editorial stance at one outlet.

### Conclusion

While Bezos's changes at **The Washington Post** could influence talent dynamics within the journalism market, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that the heads of HR and recruiting at **The Wall Street Journal** and **The New York Times** will directly benefit from these changes. The impact on talent movements and hiring trends would depend on various factors, including the specific editorial directions of each outlet and the preferences of individual journalists.

In summary, the claim is speculative and lacks direct evidence to support it. The actual impact on HR and recruiting at other major newspapers would require more specific data on talent movements and hiring trends following Bezos's announcement.

Citations

Claim

NVIDIA's earnings were a blockbuster.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that NVIDIA's earnings were a blockbuster, we need to examine recent financial reports and summaries from reliable sources.

## Recent Financial Performance of NVIDIA

1. **First Quarter Fiscal 2025**: NVIDIA reported a record quarterly revenue of $26.0 billion, which represents an 18% increase from the previous quarter and a 262% increase from the same period last year. The Data Center segment contributed significantly, with revenue reaching $22.6 billion, up 23% from the previous quarter and 427% from a year ago[1].

2. **Third Quarter Fiscal 2025**: NVIDIA achieved a record quarterly revenue of $35.1 billion, marking a 17% increase from the previous quarter and a 94% increase from the same period last year. The Data Center segment again performed strongly, with revenue of $30.8 billion, up 17% from the previous quarter and 112% from a year ago[5].

3. **Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2025**: Analysts expected NVIDIA to report record revenue of approximately $38.32 billion, with actual results exceeding expectations at $39.33 billion, representing a 78% year-over-year increase. The Data Center segment drove this growth, contributing $35.6 billion to the total revenue[2][3].

## Analysis of the Claim

– **Revenue Growth**: NVIDIA's revenue has shown significant growth across all quarters in fiscal 2025, with substantial increases in both overall revenue and specifically in the Data Center segment. This growth is largely driven by the demand for AI infrastructure, positioning NVIDIA as a leader in this field[1][5].

– **Market Expectations and Performance**: NVIDIA has consistently beaten earnings estimates, establishing a strong track record of outperformance. The company's ability to meet or exceed market expectations has contributed to its reputation for delivering blockbuster earnings[2][3].

– **Industry Impact**: The strong financial performance of NVIDIA is seen as a key indicator of the AI sector's health and growth potential. This makes NVIDIA's earnings not just significant for the company but also influential in broader market trends[2].

## Conclusion

Based on the evidence from recent financial reports and market analyses, the claim that NVIDIA's earnings were a blockbuster is **valid**. NVIDIA's consistent revenue growth, particularly in the Data Center segment, and its ability to exceed market expectations support this assertion. The company's performance is not only impressive in its own right but also reflects the broader trend of increased demand for AI-related technologies[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

The Washington Post will now publish daily opinion stories on two editorial pillars: personal liberties and free markets.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The Washington Post's Editorial Shift

The claim that **The Washington Post will now publish daily opinion stories on two editorial pillars: personal liberties and free markets** can be evaluated based on recent announcements by Jeff Bezos, the owner of the newspaper.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Jeff Bezos' Announcement**: Bezos announced a significant shift in the editorial policy of The Washington Post, focusing on personal liberties and free markets. He stated that while the paper will cover other topics, viewpoints opposing these pillars will be left to other publications[2][3].

2. **Editorial Changes**: This shift led to the departure of David Shipley, the editorial page editor, who was offered but declined to lead the new direction. The Post is now searching for a new opinion editor who will align with this vision[2][3].

3. **Rationale for the Shift**: Bezos justified the change by noting that the internet now provides a broad range of opinions, making it unnecessary for a single newspaper to cover all viewpoints. He emphasized that free markets and personal liberties are core American principles that are underserved in current media discourse[2][3].

### Implications and Reactions

– **Journalistic Integrity Concerns**: The shift has sparked controversy among some journalists and media observers, who see it as a narrowing of the editorial scope and a potential encroachment on journalistic independence. Critics argue that this could undermine the Post's ability to provide balanced coverage and hold power accountable[2][4].

– **Celebration from Conservatives**: Conversely, some conservative figures have welcomed the change, viewing it as a positive shift in the media landscape[2].

### Conclusion

The claim is **accurate** based on the announcements made by Jeff Bezos and the subsequent changes at The Washington Post. However, the implications of this shift on journalistic integrity and diversity of opinion are subjects of ongoing debate and scrutiny.

### References

[1] Poynter. (2025). Opinion | Is Bezos’s new editorial mission for The Washington Post already bombing?

[2] KTVZ. (2025). Jeff Bezos announces 'significant shift' coming to The Washington Post.

[3] NY1. (2025). Washington Post to refocus editorials on personal liberties.

[4] National Herald India. (2025). Jeff Bezos reshapes Washington Post opinion section, sparks outcry.

Citations

Claim

Jeff Bezos previously stated he would never interfere with editorial content and would feel terrible about it when he was 80 years old.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Jeff Bezos previously stated he would never interfere with editorial content and would feel terrible about it when he was 80 years old, we need to review available interviews or statements from Bezos. However, the provided search results do not include any direct evidence or quotes from Bezos making such a statement.

## Analysis of Available Information

1. **Current Actions at The Washington Post**: Recent actions by Bezos, such as his new mandate for the opinion section of The Washington Post, have raised concerns about his involvement in editorial content. This includes focusing on personal liberties and free markets, which led to the resignation of the opinion editor, David Shipley[1]. This move has been criticized by some as an encroachment on editorial independence.

2. **Past Commitments**: While there is no specific evidence in the search results about Bezos' past statements regarding non-interference in editorial content, his recent actions suggest a shift in his approach. Historically, Bezos has emphasized the importance of editorial independence, but recent decisions have sparked debate about his commitment to this principle[2].

3. **Criticism and Perception**: Critics argue that Bezos' actions undermine the credibility of The Washington Post by suggesting that he is exerting control over editorial content. This perception is exacerbated by his decision to block certain endorsements and his new direction for the opinion section[2].

## Conclusion

Without specific evidence or a direct quote from Bezos stating that he would never interfere with editorial content and would feel terrible about it when he was 80 years old, it is challenging to verify this claim. However, Bezos' recent actions at The Washington Post have raised questions about his commitment to editorial independence, which contrasts with the perception of his past stance on the matter. Further research into interviews or public statements from Bezos would be necessary to confirm or deny this claim.

## Recommendations for Further Verification

– **Review Interviews and Public Statements**: Search for interviews or public statements where Bezos discusses his approach to editorial independence and his role as the owner of The Washington Post.
– **Consult News Archives**: Look through news archives for any instances where Bezos explicitly addressed his commitment to non-interference in editorial content.
– **Evaluate Context**: Consider the context in which any statements were made, including the timing and potential motivations behind them.

Citations

Claim

The Department of Energy has been tasked with cutting $800 billion.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the Department of Energy (DOE) has been tasked with cutting $800 billion, we need to examine recent budgetary documents and governmental announcements regarding fiscal policy.

## Analysis of the Claim

1. **Department of Energy Budget**: The FY 2025 budget for the Department of Energy includes a total budget authority of $51 billion, which represents a $3.6 billion increase from the FY 2023 enacted level[1]. There is no mention of the DOE being tasked with cutting $800 billion.

2. **Budgetary Context**: The FY 2025 budget focuses on investing in climate and clean energy research, development, and deployment programs, with significant allocations for initiatives like industrial decarbonization and clean energy innovation[1]. This suggests a focus on investment rather than large-scale cuts.

3. **General Budget Discussions**: Recent budget discussions in the U.S. have involved potential cuts in other areas, such as Medicaid, as part of broader fiscal policy debates[2]. However, these discussions do not involve the Department of Energy.

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that the Department of Energy has been tasked with cutting $800 billion. The DOE's budget for FY 2025 emphasizes investments in clean energy and climate initiatives, not large-scale reductions[1]. Therefore, the claim appears to be unfounded.

Citations

Claim

Sales in Europe are down 45% from this time last year.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Tesla Sales in Europe Down 45%

The claim that Tesla's sales in Europe are down 45% from the same time last year can be evaluated using recent automotive sales data and industry reports.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **Sales Data**: According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), Tesla sold 9,945 units in Europe in January 2025, down from 18,161 in January 2024. This represents a decline of approximately 45% in sales year-over-year[1][2][3].

2. **Regional Variations**: The decline was more pronounced in certain countries. For instance, Tesla's sales in Germany fell by nearly 60%, and in France, they dropped by 63%[1][2].

3. **Industry Context**: Despite Tesla's struggles, the overall electric vehicle (EV) market in Europe experienced significant growth. BEV sales increased by 37% across the region, indicating that the decline in Tesla sales is not due to a lack of demand for EVs but rather specific factors affecting Tesla[2][4].

4. **Possible Causes**: Several factors could be contributing to Tesla's decline:
– **Elon Musk's Controversies**: Musk's political activities and controversies have likely impacted Tesla's brand perception in Europe[1][3].
– **Competition and Market Dynamics**: Increased competition from other EV manufacturers, including Chinese brands like BYD and SAIC Motors, has also played a role[3][4].
– **Model Updates and Supply Issues**: The timing of the Model Y update and potential inventory shortages might have further reduced demand for Tesla vehicles[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that Tesla's sales in Europe are down 45% from the previous year is **supported** by data from reputable sources such as ACEA and industry analyses[1][2][3]. The decline is attributed to a combination of factors, including negative publicity surrounding Elon Musk, increased competition, and potential supply disruptions.

Citations

Claim

There are currently about 20 million subscriptions to newspapers in the US, down from 60 to 80 million.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that there are currently about 20 million subscriptions to newspapers in the US, down from 60 to 80 million, we need to examine historical and current data on newspaper circulation.

## Historical Circulation
In 2000, U.S. newspapers collectively had an average weekday circulation of 55.8 million and an average Sunday circulation of 59.4 million[2]. This suggests that the total circulation was indeed closer to the range of 60 to 80 million when considering both weekday and Sunday editions.

## Current Circulation
By 2020, the average weekday circulation had dropped to about 24.3 million, and Sunday circulation to 25.8 million[2]. More recent data indicates that the estimated total U.S. daily newspaper circulation (print and digital combined) was 20.9 million in 2022[1]. This figure aligns with the claim of approximately 20 million subscriptions.

## Decline of Newspapers
The decline in newspaper circulation is attributed to several factors, including the rise of digital media, loss of classified advertising, and shifts in consumer preferences[3]. The industry has seen significant financial challenges, with revenues declining by about 80% since their peak in 2000[2].

## Conclusion
The claim that there are currently about 20 million subscriptions to newspapers in the US, down from 60 to 80 million, is supported by historical and current data. The decline reflects broader trends in the media landscape, driven by digital transformation and changes in consumer behavior.

### Evidence Summary:
– **Historical Circulation**: In 2000, U.S. newspapers had a combined weekday and Sunday circulation of approximately 60 to 80 million[2].
– **Current Circulation**: By 2022, total U.S. daily newspaper circulation (print and digital) was about 20.9 million[1].
– **Decline Factors**: The decline is due to digital media, loss of classified ads, and consumer preference shifts[3].

Overall, the claim is accurate based on available data and trends in the newspaper industry.

Citations

Claim

Tesla is struggling to sell cars.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Tesla is struggling to sell cars**, we can examine recent sales data, financial reports, and market analysis.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Sales Decline**: Recent reports indicate that Tesla's deliveries are expected to decrease significantly in the first quarter of 2025. It is projected that Tesla will deliver about 359,000 vehicles, which represents a 7% year-over-year decline and a substantial 27% drop from the previous quarter[1]. This decline suggests challenges in maintaining previous sales levels.

2. **Market Competition**: The electric vehicle (EV) market has become increasingly competitive, especially with strong contenders from China such as BYD, XPENG, NIO, Zeekr, and Li Auto[3][4]. This competition could be eroding Tesla's market share, particularly in regions like China, which is crucial for Tesla's sales.

3. **Consumer Demand Challenges**: Tesla has been offering more incentives and discounts to stimulate consumer demand, indicating that sales are not meeting expectations[3]. This strategy is often used when companies face difficulties in selling their products at the desired pace.

4. **Leadership and Strategic Shifts**: Elon Musk's leadership style and recent strategic decisions, such as focusing on autonomous robotaxis and canceling plans for an affordable EV model (Model 2), have created uncertainty and dissatisfaction among some employees and investors[4]. This internal turmoil could impact Tesla's ability to effectively market and sell its vehicles.

## Additional Context

– **Global Market Dynamics**: The global EV market is evolving rapidly, with many countries increasing their adoption of electric vehicles. However, mainstream markets outside China have been slower to adopt EVs, which can affect Tesla's sales[4].

– **Public Perception**: Elon Musk's public behavior and political engagement have been divisive, potentially affecting consumer perception of Tesla and influencing purchasing decisions[5].

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, the claim that **Tesla is struggling to sell cars** appears to be supported. The decline in projected deliveries, increased market competition, challenges in consumer demand, and internal strategic shifts all contribute to this conclusion. However, it's important to note that the EV market is dynamic, and Tesla's performance can change rapidly based on various factors, including technological advancements and market trends.

Citations

Claim

There has been a significant amount of fraud in the crypto markets and this will be revealed in three years.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Significant Fraud in Crypto Markets to be Revealed in Three Years

The claim suggests that there will be a significant revelation of fraud in the crypto markets within the next three years. To assess this claim, we need to consider current trends in crypto-related fraud, regulatory efforts, and the evolving nature of the crypto market.

### Current Trends in Crypto Fraud

1. **Prevalence of Scams and Fraud**: The crypto market has historically been plagued by scams and fraud. Recent reports indicate that scams and fraud remain a significant threat, with sanctioned entities and blocklisted addresses contributing substantially to illicit crypto volumes[1][3]. This ongoing activity suggests that fraud is an entrenched issue in the crypto space.

2. **Ransomware and Hacks**: There has been a notable increase in ransomware attacks and crypto-related hacks. In 2024, ransomware payments reached record highs, and hacks resulted in significant financial losses, with North Korean-linked groups stealing nearly USD 800 million[1][3]. These incidents highlight the vulnerability of the crypto ecosystem to criminal exploitation.

3. **Regulatory Efforts**: Regulatory bodies such as the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ have been actively engaged in combating crypto fraud through enforcement actions. The SEC has targeted unregistered securities offerings and exchanges, while the DOJ has focused on market manipulation and criminal prosecutions[4][5]. These efforts indicate a growing commitment to addressing fraud in the crypto space.

### Future Outlook

Given the current trends and regulatory focus, it is plausible that ongoing investigations and analyses could uncover significant fraud in the crypto markets over the next three years. The evolving nature of crypto fraud, combined with enhanced regulatory scrutiny and technological advancements in tracing illicit transactions, supports the likelihood of future revelations.

### Conclusion

While the claim about future revelations of fraud is speculative, it is grounded in the reality of current trends and regulatory efforts. The crypto market's history of scams, the ongoing regulatory crackdown, and the evolving sophistication of both fraudsters and law enforcement suggest that significant fraud could indeed be uncovered in the coming years.

**Evidence Supporting the Claim:**
– **Ongoing Fraud and Scams**: The persistence of scams and fraud in the crypto space[1][3].
– **Regulatory Actions**: Active enforcement by regulatory bodies aimed at combating fraud[4][5].
– **Technological Advancements**: Improvements in tracing and detecting illicit transactions could lead to more revelations of fraud.

**Conclusion Validity**: The claim is plausible based on current trends and regulatory efforts, but its specificity regarding the timing and extent of future revelations remains speculative.

Citations

Claim

The first measles death since 2015 has occurred.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: First Measles Death Since 2015

The claim that the first measles death since 2015 has occurred can be verified through recent health reports and disease tracking data.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Texas Health Officials' Announcement**: On February 26, 2025, Texas health officials announced the death of a child due to measles, marking the first such death in the United States since 2015[1][2][4].

2. **CDC and Health Department Reports**: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Texas Department of State Health Services have confirmed this single death associated with the measles outbreak[3][5].

3. **Outbreak Details**: The outbreak was identified in early February 2025 in Gaines County, Texas, where vaccination rates are lower than the national average. As of late February, there were at least 124 confirmed cases in Texas and nearby areas in New Mexico[1][2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reliable health sources, the claim that the first measles death since 2015 has occurred is **true**. This event highlights the importance of maintaining high vaccination rates to prevent such outbreaks and protect public health.

### Recommendations for Public Health

– **Vaccination**: The measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is highly effective in preventing measles. Two doses are 97% effective, and one dose is 93% effective[5].
– **Community Immunity**: Achieving a vaccination rate of over 95% in a community is crucial to prevent the spread of measles through herd immunity[5].
– **Monitoring and Reporting**: Continuous monitoring and reporting by health departments are essential for early detection and management of outbreaks[5].

Citations

Claim

Elon Musk claimed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) accidentally canceled an Ebola prevention program, which he said was restored immediately.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Elon Musk stated the Department of Justice (DOJ) accidentally canceled an Ebola prevention program, which he said was restored immediately, we need to correct the context first. The claim actually involves the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), not the DOJ. Here's a detailed analysis based on available information:

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Context Correction**: The claim involves USAID, not the DOJ. Elon Musk, as part of his role in streamlining government operations, mentioned that USAID's Ebola prevention efforts were accidentally halted but then restored[1][2].

2. **Musk's Statement**: Musk acknowledged that his team, DOGE, made a mistake by temporarily canceling USAID's Ebola prevention program. He claimed that the program was quickly reinstated with no interruption[2].

3. **Expert Rebuttals**: Public health experts and former USAID officials dispute Musk's claims. They argue that USAID's capacity to handle Ebola prevention has been severely diminished due to significant cuts and layoffs[1][3]. Jeremy Konyndyk, a former director of USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, described Musk's actions as a "fig-leaf effort" to cover politically, emphasizing that the real capacity to respond to outbreaks has been wrecked[2].

4. **Current Status of USAID**: Reports indicate that USAID has been effectively dismantled, with thousands of employees placed on leave and only a fraction of its previous operational capacity remaining[1][3]. This contradicts Musk's assertion that Ebola prevention efforts were restored without interruption.

5. **Ebola Prevention Efforts**: Ebola prevention involves a broader set of activities, including funding for USAID, support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these efforts have not been reinstated as Musk claimed[3].

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, Elon Musk's claim that the Ebola prevention program was restored immediately after being accidentally canceled appears to be inaccurate. Experts and former officials argue that USAID's capacity to handle such programs has been severely compromised due to extensive cuts and layoffs. Therefore, the claim lacks substantial support from credible sources.

**Evidence Summary**:
– **Musk's Claim**: Temporarily canceled Ebola prevention program was restored immediately[2].
– **Expert Disagreement**: USAID's capacity is diminished, and no real restoration of Ebola prevention efforts occurred[1][3].
– **Current USAID Status**: Severely reduced operational capacity due to cuts and layoffs[1][3].

Citations

Claim

According to experts, nothing about the Ebola prevention program has been restored and the number of people involved has decreased from 60 to 6.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "nothing about the Ebola prevention program has been restored and the number of people involved has decreased from 60 to 6," we need to examine recent statements from health experts and public health communications regarding the status of Ebola prevention programs, particularly in the context of USAID and global health initiatives.

## Analysis of the Claim

1. **USAID's Ebola Prevention Efforts**: Recent reports indicate that USAID's Ebola prevention efforts have been significantly impacted. Public health experts and former USAID officials have stated that these efforts have not been reinstated following disruptions. Dr. Craig Spencer, a professor at Brown University School of Public Health, noted that there is no specific budget line for Ebola prevention at USAID, and the work on preventing infectious diseases has been hindered by funding cuts and layoffs at agencies like the CDC[2][4]. This suggests that the claim about a lack of restoration in Ebola prevention efforts may be accurate.

2. **Reduction in Personnel**: While specific numbers like a decrease from 60 to 6 are not directly mentioned in available sources, there are reports of significant reductions in personnel and resources dedicated to disease prevention. For instance, USAID has been substantially dismantled, with many grants canceled and personnel laid off[4]. This supports the notion that there has been a decrease in the number of people involved in Ebola prevention efforts.

3. **Global Health Initiatives**: The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to support Ebola prevention and response efforts, particularly in countries like Uganda, where a recent outbreak has prompted a vaccine trial[1][3]. However, these efforts are not directly related to the claim about USAID's programs.

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, the claim that Ebola prevention programs have not been restored and that there has been a significant reduction in personnel appears to be supported by reports of disruptions in USAID's efforts and reductions in global health personnel. However, specific details such as the exact number of personnel involved before and after the changes are not provided in the sources reviewed.

**Evidence Supporting the Claim**:
– Disruptions in USAID's Ebola prevention efforts[2][4].
– Significant reductions in personnel and resources for disease prevention[4].

**Limitations**:
– Lack of specific data on the number of personnel involved before and after the changes.
– The claim's specificity about a decrease from 60 to 6 personnel is not directly supported by the reviewed sources.

Citations

Claim

Musk has received between $15 to $50 billion in subsidies depending on how you count them.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Elon Musk has received between $15 to $50 billion in subsidies, we can analyze available data on government funding received by his companies, primarily Tesla and SpaceX.

## Evidence and Analysis

1. **Government Funding Figures**: According to a recent analysis by the Washington Post, Elon Musk's businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits over the years[1][2]. This figure is considered an undercount because it only includes publicly available data and excludes classified contracts[2].

2. **Breakdown of Funding**: The funding includes at least $1.5 billion in tax credits, grants, and reimbursements from state and local governments since 2007. Additionally, various government agencies have contributed another $2.1 billion, primarily for Tesla and its battery development[1][2].

3. **Ongoing Contracts**: There are also ongoing contracts with government agencies like NASA and the Defense Department, which could potentially pay Musk's companies an additional $11.8 billion in the future[2].

4. **Comparison with Claimed Range**: The claim suggests a range of $15 to $50 billion. The verified figure of at least $38 billion falls within this range but leans towards the higher end. It's important to note that the actual total could be higher due to unreported or classified contracts[2].

5. **Conclusion**: Based on available data, the claim that Elon Musk has received between $15 to $50 billion in subsidies is supported, with the verified amount being at least $38 billion.

## Additional Considerations

– **Transparency and Disclosure**: Concerns about transparency arise because Musk's financial disclosures as a special government employee are confidential, which could obscure potential conflicts of interest[5].
– **Influence on Policy**: Musk's influence on government policies and contracts raises questions about whether his involvement benefits his personal business interests[3][5].

In summary, while the exact total might vary due to unreported figures, the claim that Elon Musk has received between $15 to $50 billion in subsidies is substantiated by the verified amount of at least $38 billion.

Citations

Claim

Tesla shares plunged more than 8% on Wednesday, pushing its market cap below 1 trillion.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Tesla shares plunged more than 8% on Wednesday, pushing its market cap below $1 trillion, we need to verify the specific date and details of the stock performance. However, the provided search results indicate that Tesla's stock did experience a significant decline around late February 2025, which aligns with the claim but does not specify a Wednesday.

Here are the key points from the search results:

1. **Stock Decline and Market Cap**: Tesla's stock did decline by more than 8% on a specific day in late February 2025, which caused its market capitalization to drop below $1 trillion. On February 25, Tesla's stock closed down 8.4% at $302.80, with a market cap of $974 billion[2][4].

2. **Sales Performance**: The decline was partly attributed to a significant drop in European sales, with a 45% plunge in EV registrations in January compared to the previous year[3][4].

3. **Date of Decline**: While the search results do not specify a Wednesday, they do confirm that Tesla's stock experienced a substantial decline in late February 2025.

Based on the available information, the claim that Tesla shares plunged more than 8% and pushed its market cap below $1 trillion is accurate for late February 2025, but the specific day of the week (Wednesday) is not confirmed in the search results. Therefore, the claim is partially verified, with the stock decline and market cap drop confirmed, but the exact day of the week not specified in the sources.

Citations

Claim

Tesla sales are off between 10% and 40% in California.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Tesla sales are off between 10% and 40% in California, we can rely on recent data from reputable sources.

**Evidence from Reliable Sources:**

1. **Sales Decline in California**: According to recent reports, Tesla's sales in California dropped by 11.6% in 2024 compared to the previous year. This decline was from 230,010 vehicles in 2023 to 203,221 vehicles in 2024[1][2][3].

2. **Market Share Reduction**: This decline led to a reduction in Tesla's market share in California's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) market from 60.1% to 52.5%[1][2][3].

3. **Competitive Landscape**: The sales drop is attributed to increased competition from other automakers like Hyundai, Kia, BMW, and Cadillac, which have shown significant growth in their EV sales[1][2].

**Conclusion:**

The claim that Tesla sales are off between 10% and 40% in California is partially supported by the data. The actual decline in Tesla's sales in California was 11.6%, which falls within the lower end of the claimed range[1][2][3]. However, there is no evidence to suggest a decline as high as 40%. Therefore, the claim is accurate only in stating a decline within the range but not to the extent of 40%.

**Recommendation for Future Claims:**

For future claims, it would be beneficial to provide more precise data and context to avoid overestimation or underestimation of market trends. Additionally, considering the dynamic nature of the automotive market, continuous monitoring of sales data and market shifts is essential for accurate assessments.

Citations

Claim

Nvidia quarterly earnings were 39 billion, a 78% increase compared to Q4 last year.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Nvidia's quarterly earnings were $39 billion, representing a 78% increase compared to Q4 last year**, we can refer to official financial reports and reputable news sources.

1. **Official Financial Reports**: According to NVIDIA's official financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025, the company reported a record quarterly revenue of $39.3 billion. This figure represents a 78% increase from the same quarter in the previous year, which had revenue of $22.1 billion[1][4].

2. **Reputable News Sources**: News outlets such as Capacity Media also reported that NVIDIA achieved a record quarterly revenue of $39.3 billion, marking a 78% year-over-year increase. This aligns with the official figures provided by NVIDIA[2].

Based on these reliable sources, the claim is accurate. NVIDIA did indeed report quarterly earnings of $39.3 billion for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025, which represents a 78% increase from the same period in the previous year.

**Conclusion**: The claim is **true**. NVIDIA's fourth-quarter earnings for fiscal 2025 were $39.3 billion, reflecting a 78% increase from the same quarter in fiscal 2024[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

Profits for Nvidia spiked 80% from a year earlier to 22 billion, beating Wall Street's expectations.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Nvidia's Profits Spiked 80% to $22 Billion

The claim that Nvidia's profits spiked 80% from a year earlier to $22 billion can be evaluated using recent financial reports and analyst expectations.

### Evidence from Financial Reports

– **Revenue and Profit Growth**: Nvidia reported a record quarterly revenue of $39.3 billion for the quarter ending January 26, 2025, which represents a 78% increase from the same period a year ago[1][4]. This significant revenue growth is primarily attributed to the strong demand for Nvidia's AI chips, particularly the Blackwell series[1][5].

– **Net Profit**: According to reports, Nvidia's net profit was $22.1 billion, which is an 80% increase from the same quarter last year[5]. This aligns with the claim of an 80% profit increase.

### Analyst Expectations

– **Wall Street Expectations**: Nvidia's earnings and revenue beat Wall Street estimates. For instance, the revenue was higher than the estimated $37.72 billion by Zacks Investment Research[1]. Similarly, earnings per share of 89 cents exceeded expectations of 84 cents[1].

### Conclusion

The claim that Nvidia's profits spiked 80% to $22 billion is **substantiated** by financial reports and analyst expectations. Nvidia's strong performance in AI chip sales drove both revenue and profit growth, exceeding market expectations[1][4][5].

However, it's worth noting that while Nvidia's financial performance was impressive, concerns about market expectations and future growth rates remain, as discussed in broader analyses of the tech sector[2][5]. Additionally, factors like export controls and competition from emerging AI technologies could influence future performance[5].

Citations

Claim

The company projected revenue in the current quarter will rise 65% to 43 billion.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Nvidia projected revenue in the current quarter will rise 65% to $43 billion, we can refer to Nvidia's official financial announcements and recent news coverage.

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Revenue Projection**: Nvidia has indeed provided a revenue forecast for the first quarter of fiscal 2026. According to their official financial results, Nvidia guided investors toward a revenue of $43 billion, plus or minus 2%[1][2]. This aligns with the claim of a revenue projection of approximately $43 billion.

2. **Year-over-Year Growth**: The claim mentions a 65% year-over-year growth. In the previous year's first quarter, Nvidia reported revenue of $26 billion[1]. A growth to $43 billion would represent a year-over-year increase of about 65%, which supports the claim[1][3].

3. **Context**: Nvidia's strong performance in the data center segment, driven by AI infrastructure demand, has been a significant factor in their recent financial success[1][2]. This context supports the feasibility of such a revenue projection.

## Conclusion

Based on Nvidia's official financial announcements and recent news coverage, the claim that Nvidia projected revenue in the current quarter will rise 65% to approximately $43 billion is **valid**. The projected revenue aligns with Nvidia's guidance, and the year-over-year growth rate matches the reported figures from previous quarters[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

The gold card would replace the current EB-5 visa which requires investors to put in a million dollars and create at least 10 jobs.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the "Gold Card" would replace the current EB-5 visa, which requires investors to invest at least $1 million and create at least 10 jobs, we need to examine the details of both programs and the intentions behind the proposed changes.

## Overview of the EB-5 Visa

The EB-5 visa program, established in 1990, allows foreign investors to obtain a green card if they invest in a U.S. commercial enterprise and create or preserve at least 10 full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers. The investment threshold is typically $1.05 million, or $800,000 if the investment is made in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA) [1][4].

## Details of the Gold Card Proposal

The "Gold Card" proposal, floated by President Donald Trump, would require a $5 million investment from wealthy foreign investors in exchange for permanent U.S. residency and a pathway to citizenship. Unlike the EB-5 program, the Gold Card does not have a direct job creation requirement; instead, it focuses on attracting capital for government use [1][2][3].

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Replacement of EB-5**: The claim that the Gold Card would replace the EB-5 visa is supported by statements from the Trump administration. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick described the EB-5 program as "full of nonsense, make-believe, and fraud," suggesting that the Gold Card would be a replacement [5]. However, it's crucial to note that replacing an existing visa program like EB-5 would likely require legislative action, which has not been detailed in the available information.

2. **Investment and Job Creation**: The EB-5 program requires an investment of $1.05 million (or $800,000 in TEAs) and the creation of at least 10 jobs. In contrast, the Gold Card requires a $5 million investment without a job creation requirement [1][2][4]. This shift from job creation to wealth-based immigration aligns with the Trump administration's stated goals but diverges significantly from the EB-5 model.

## Conclusion

The claim that the Gold Card would replace the EB-5 visa is partially supported by the Trump administration's intentions and public statements. However, the actual implementation and legal framework for such a replacement would need to be clarified, particularly regarding any necessary legislative approvals. The Gold Card's focus on wealth rather than job creation marks a significant departure from the EB-5 program's objectives.

In summary, while the Gold Card proposal aims to replace the EB-5 visa with a new wealth-based immigration pathway, the process and legal requirements for this change remain uncertain and would likely require further legislative action.

Citations

Claim

London has catered to a butler economy and serves wealth created elsewhere.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **London has catered to a "butler economy" and serves wealth created elsewhere** can be evaluated through several economic and historical lenses. This concept is explored in Oliver Bullough's book *Butler to the World: How Britain became the servant of tycoons, tax dodgers, kleptocrats and criminals*, which highlights Britain's role in managing wealth for global elites, often with questionable ethical standards[1].

## Economic Shift and Wealth Management

1. **Financial Hub Role**: London has evolved into a significant financial hub, specializing in professional services, real estate, and information technology[4]. This specialization attracts wealth from around the world, positioning London as a key player in managing international wealth.

2. **Offshore Economy**: The UK, particularly London, has been involved in the offshore economy, facilitating tax avoidance and wealth concealment for global elites. This role has been criticized for supporting illicit financial activities with minimal regulatory oversight[1].

3. **Global Wealth Management**: London's financial sector is geared towards serving global wealth, often prioritizing the interests of international clients over domestic economic needs. This includes managing assets for wealthy individuals and corporations from various regions[1].

## Regional Economic Inequality

1. **Productivity Differentials**: The UK faces significant regional economic inequality, primarily due to productivity differences between London and other regions. London's high productivity is driven by its specialization in finance and business services, which contrasts with the deindustrialized regions in the North and Midlands[2].

2. **Migration and Housing**: Despite high interregional migration, London's housing costs deter many from moving there, limiting access to its economic opportunities. This contributes to persistent regional disparities[2].

## Conclusion

The claim that London serves a "butler economy" by managing wealth created elsewhere is supported by evidence of its role as a global financial hub and its involvement in the offshore economy. However, this role also contributes to regional economic disparities within the UK. London's economic success is largely driven by its specialization in financial services, which attracts wealth from around the world but also exacerbates regional inequalities due to its high cost of living and limited access to its economic opportunities[1][2][4].

In summary, while London does cater to a global wealth management role, this comes with significant economic and social implications for the broader UK economy.

Citations

Claim

People come to London to spend and protect their wealth, whereas people go to America to make their wealth.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Wealth Movement Between the U.S. and the U.K.

The claim suggests that people come to London to spend and protect their wealth, while they go to America to make their wealth. This assertion reflects different motivations behind wealth movement between the two countries. Let's analyze this claim using available data and insights from economic studies and surveys on wealthy individuals' migration patterns.

### Motivations for Wealth Movement

1. **London as a Hub for Spending and Wealth Protection:**
– Historically, London has been a global financial hub, attracting high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) due to its financial services, luxury lifestyle, and favorable tax regimes, such as the non-domiciled (non-dom) status. However, recent changes in the non-dom tax regime have led to an exodus of wealthy individuals from the U.K.[1].
– The U.K.'s wealth inequality is high, with the top 10% holding a significant portion of the wealth, which might influence how wealth is managed and spent within the country[2].

2. **America as a Place to Make Wealth:**
– The United States is often seen as a land of opportunity for entrepreneurship and wealth creation. It offers a stable political environment, world-class healthcare, and extensive legal protections for wealth, making it an attractive destination for those seeking to build or expand their wealth[3].
– The U.S. is known for its vibrant startup ecosystem and large consumer market, which can facilitate wealth creation through business ventures and investments.

### Migration Patterns of the Wealthy

– **Global Trends:** In 2024, an unprecedented 128,000 millionaires are expected to relocate globally, driven by factors such as tax policies, quality of life, and political stability[3].
– **U.K. Outflows:** The U.K. has experienced significant outflows of HNWIs, partly due to changes in tax policies and Brexit-related uncertainties. Many have relocated to the EU, the U.S., and other destinations offering more favorable conditions[1][3].
– **U.S. Inflows:** The U.S. continues to attract HNWIs, with about 3,800 millionaires expected to relocate there in 2024. The country's stable environment and opportunities for wealth creation are key draws[3].

### Conclusion

While the claim simplifies complex motivations, there is evidence to support the idea that London has historically been a place where wealth is spent and protected, particularly due to its financial services and luxury lifestyle. However, recent changes have led to an exodus of wealthy individuals. On the other hand, the U.S. is often seen as a place where wealth can be created due to its entrepreneurial opportunities and stable environment. Thus, the claim holds some truth but should be nuanced to reflect the evolving global wealth migration trends and the diverse motivations behind them.

### References

[1] [UK Lost 10,800 Millionaires in 2024 As Non-Dom Changes Spark Record Exodus](https://www.imidaily.com/europe/uk-lost-10800-millionaires-in-2024-as-non-dom-changes-spark-record-exodus/)

[2] [Changing the narrative on wealth inequality](https://www.jrf.org.uk/narrative-change/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality)

[3] [Global Millionaire Migration Trends in 2024: Key Insights and Implications](https://schraner-verbier.ch/blog/global-millionaire-migration-trends-2024/)

Citations

Claim

Doge is going to be over and done by the end of the year.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Dogecoin is going to be over and done by the end of the year."

To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider current market trends, expert opinions, and the inherent nature of Dogecoin as a cryptocurrency. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Market Trends and Predictions

1. **Price Predictions**: Despite fluctuations, many analysts predict that Dogecoin will continue to have a presence in the cryptocurrency market. For instance, some forecasts suggest that Dogecoin could reach prices ranging from $0.55 to $1.1 by the end of 2025, with potential drops due to market resistance[2][3]. These predictions indicate that Dogecoin is not expected to become "over and done" in the near future.

2. **Long-term Projections**: Long-term forecasts vary widely, with some suggesting that Dogecoin could reach significant highs by 2030 or beyond[1]. However, these projections are highly speculative and depend on various market factors.

### Expert Opinions

1. **Volatility and Community Support**: Experts note that Dogecoin's value is heavily influenced by media attention and community support. As long as it remains a topic of interest, it is likely to maintain some level of market presence[1].

2. **Challenges and Limitations**: Dogecoin faces challenges due to its meme status and lack of inherent utility compared to other cryptocurrencies. Its limitless supply also poses a risk to price stability[5]. However, these factors do not necessarily imply that it will become obsolete by the end of the year.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, the claim that "Dogecoin is going to be over and done by the end of the year" appears to be speculative and not supported by current market trends or expert opinions. While Dogecoin faces challenges, it is still expected to remain relevant in the cryptocurrency market due to its community support and media presence.

**Evidence Summary**:
– **Market Predictions**: Forecasts suggest Dogecoin will continue to fluctuate but remain relevant in 2025 and beyond[2][3].
– **Expert Views**: Dogecoin's value is influenced by media and community support, and it faces challenges due to its nature and supply[1][5].
– **Long-term Potential**: Highly speculative forecasts suggest potential for growth, but these are uncertain[1][5].

In conclusion, while Dogecoin's future is uncertain and subject to market volatility, there is no strong evidence to support the claim that it will be "over and done" by the end of the year.

Citations

Claim

Tesla sales will continue to plummet and Tesla stock will continue to go down.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Tesla sales will continue to plummet and Tesla stock will continue to decline, we need to consider recent sales trends, market competition, and factors influencing consumer behavior.

## Recent Sales Trends

1. **Global Sales Decline**: Tesla's sales have been declining significantly in various regions. In Australia, combined sales of the Model Y and Model 3 fell by 71.9% in February compared to the same month in 2024[1]. In Europe, Tesla's sales have also plummeted, with decreases in countries like Germany (down 60%), France (down 63%), and the UK (down 8%)[4].

2. **European Market Challenges**: In Scandinavia and France, Tesla sales dropped substantially in February 2025, eroding its market share. This decline is partly attributed to Elon Musk's political involvement and the broader European sentiment towards him[2][3].

3. **US Market**: In California, Tesla's largest US market, sales have been decreasing, partly due to Musk's political actions and the relocation of Tesla's headquarters to Texas[3].

## Market Competition

1. **Rising Competition**: Tesla faces increasing competition from other EV manufacturers, notably BYD, which recently surpassed Tesla in global EV sales. Other competitors include Rivian, Lucid Motors, and traditional automakers like Ford and Volkswagen, offering competitive models at lower prices[4].

2. **Price Wars and Innovation**: The EV market is experiencing price wars, with Tesla cutting prices to remain competitive, impacting its profit margins. Additionally, competitors are integrating AI-driven innovations, enhancing safety and efficiency[4].

## Consumer Behavior and Political Factors

1. **Consumer Sentiment**: Consumer sentiment towards Tesla has been negatively affected by Elon Musk's political controversies. In Europe, for example, Musk's actions have led to a significant decrease in Tesla's popularity[3].

2. **Political Controversies**: Musk's alliance with political figures like Donald Trump has further polarized consumer opinions, contributing to declining sales in regions where his actions are unpopular[1][3].

## Stock Market Trends

1. **Stock Performance**: Tesla's stock has faced significant challenges, recently dropping below the $1 trillion valuation mark due to falling sales and financial underperformance[4]. The company's earnings per share (EPS) missed Wall Street expectations in Q4 2024, further shaking investor confidence[4].

2. **Emissions Credit Revenue**: Tesla's reliance on emissions credit revenue is also at risk due to declining sales and political factors affecting its ability to meet emissions targets[2].

## Conclusion

The claim that Tesla sales will continue to plummet and Tesla stock will continue to decline is supported by several factors:
– **Sales Trends**: Significant declines in sales across major markets.
– **Market Competition**: Rising competition from other EV manufacturers offering competitive models.
– **Consumer Behavior**: Negative impact of Elon Musk's political controversies on consumer sentiment.
– **Stock Market Trends**: Financial underperformance and declining stock valuation.

However, the future trajectory of Tesla's sales and stock can be influenced by various factors, including the company's strategic responses to these challenges and broader market conditions. Therefore, while current trends support the claim, future outcomes depend on how Tesla adapts to these challenges.

Citations

Claim

Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sanchez are going to space on a Blue Origin launch in the spring.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sanchez are going to space on a Blue Origin launch in the spring, we can rely on recent news releases from Blue Origin and other reputable sources.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Blue Origin's Official Announcement**: On February 28, 2025, Blue Origin announced the crew for its New Shepard NS-31 mission, which includes Katy Perry, Gayle King, Lauren Sanchez, Aisha Bowe, Amanda Nguyen, and Kerianne Flynn. This mission is scheduled to launch in the spring and marks the 11th human flight for the New Shepard program[1].

2. **News Coverage**: Multiple news outlets have reported on this upcoming mission. For example, ABC News and Fox News have confirmed that Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sanchez are part of the all-female crew for this Blue Origin flight[2][4].

3. **Launch Schedule**: While the exact date of the launch is not specified, it is confirmed to take place in the spring of 2025[3].

## Conclusion

Based on the evidence from Blue Origin's official announcements and coverage by reputable news sources, the claim that Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sanchez are going to space on a Blue Origin launch in the spring is **verified**. This mission, NS-31, will be the first all-female crewed flight for Blue Origin and is part of the New Shepard program's ongoing space tourism efforts[1][2][4].

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!