President Trump's policies contributed to the increase in the national debt.
The US national debt has reached a record $34 trillion.
The US national debt has reached a record $34 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. This is due in part to President Trump's policies and his refusal to divest himself of corporate assets while in office. The House Democrats have released evidence that he took in at least $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency, with China making the largest total payment.
Donald Trump received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency.
China made the largest total payment to Trump businesses, with a total of $5.5 million paid by its embassy, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Hainan Airlines Holding Company.
Saudi Arabia was the second-largest spender on Trump properties, shelling out more than $615,000 at the Trump World Tower and Trump International Hotel.
Accuracy
China made the largest total payment to Trump businesses
Saudi Arabia was the second-largest spender on Trump properties
Trump received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency
House Oversight Democrats specifically accuse Trump of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause
Deception
(90%)
The article reports that former President Trump received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments while in office through his businesses. The transactions were detailed in a report by the House Oversight Committee and included payments to several of his hotels and properties around the world. This is clear evidence of deceptive behavior as it shows that Trump prioritized his personal financial interests over those of the American public, violating both constitutional commands and precedent set by previous commanders in chief.
The report found that China made the largest total payment to Trump's business interests, including $5.5 million from its embassy in the United States.
Saudi Arabia was the second-largest spender, shelling out more than $615,000 at two of his properties.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the report produced by House Democrats as evidence that Trump received millions from foreign governments while in office. However, this is not a reliable source and should be treated with caution.
House Democrats released evidence that he took in at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while in office
The transactions, detailed in a 156-page report called “White House For Sale” that was produced by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee
Among the countries patronizing Mr. Trump's properties, China made the largest total payment $5.5 million to his business interests
Saudi Arabia was the second-largest spender, shelling out more than $615,000 at the Trump World Tower and Trump International Hotel.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that former President Trump received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments while in office through his businesses. The report details how these transactions occurred and the specific countries involved, including China which made the largest total payment of $5.5 million to Trump's business interests.
China made the largest total payment — $5.5 million — to his business interests
Saudi Arabia was the second-largest spender, shelling out more than $615,000 at the Trump World Tower and Trump International Hotel.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Luke Broadwater has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and foreign governments as he is reporting on evidence that Eric Trump took in at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while in office.
Donald J. Trump
Eric Trump's receipt of payments from foreign-controlled entities while in office began in 2016 under the leadership of Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat of Maryland.
Hainan Airlines Holding Company
House Democrats released evidence that he took in at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while in office, engaging in the kind of conduct the G.O.P is grasping to pin on President Biden
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Luke Broadwater has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump, President, Businesses and Foreign governments. He also has a personal relationship with Eric Trump.
Eric Trump is mentioned as being involved in financial dealings with foreign governments and businesses during his father's presidency. Luke Broadwater has a personal relationship with Eric Trump.
Luke Broadwater's name appears on the byline of this article, indicating he wrote it.
The article mentions that Luke Broadwater is a reporter for The New York Times which was one of the news outlets that received payments from foreign-controlled entities while in office
Trump received millions of dollars from foreign governments while president
China made the most payments to Trump's businesses during his tenure
House Oversight Democrats specifically accuse Trump of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause
Trump attempted to block a subpoena from Mazars USA, his former accounting firm, but was eventually released from its legal obligation to provide relevant documentation to the Democrats' investigation
The report is incomplete after House Republicans took control of the committee last year and halted the investigation
Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but his family does not have any foreign business dealings
Trump received at least $7.8 million from foreign payments to his businesses during his presidency, according to the report
From China, Trump's businesses received money from the Chinese embassy, Hainan Airlines Holding Co., a Chinese state-owned airline and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a Chinese state-owned bank
The limited documents obtained by House Oversight Democrats show that Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments to his businesses during his presidency
Trump's family made millions from their overseas interests but investigators have yet to implicate Biden directly in those dealings
House Republicans continue their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his family's finances
The GOP-led probe has turned up evidence revealing the president's family made millions from their overseas interests
Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments to his businesses during his presidency, according to the report
Underscoring the uncertainty surrounding the exact number of payments made to Trump's businesses, the committee only confirmed a payment of $19,391 from the Chinese embassy to a Trump hotel in Washington
The report highlights multiple remarks from Trump on China that coincided with the payments and suggests they could have influenced foreign policy
In November 2017, after the payments from the Chinese embassy, then-President Trump traveled to China where he lavished praise on President Xi and defended Chinese trade practices in stark contrast to his previous public pronouncements
Hainan Airlines Holding Co. spent $195,662 at a Trump hotel for what the committee described as an 14-month stay
The records from Mazars do not describe the exact services provided beyond an arrival date, a departure date and 'other charges'
Mazars had no further documentation on Hainan Airlines Holding Co., suggesting that The Trump Organization may not have turned over all of the documents associated with these charges
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China spent at least $5,357,495 at Trump Tower in New York from February 2017 to October 2019
Mazars said it found no documents related to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Among its other findings, the report estimated that Saudi Arabia spent at least $615,422 at Trump Tower and Trump's hotel in Washington during Trump's tenure
The report takes aim at Trump for rejecting bipartisan advice from ethics experts to divest himself of his corporate businesses and instead giving control of his businesses to his two adult sons
Trump was enabled by prioritizing his personal interest over those of the nation
House Oversight Democrats also allege Trump violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause due to a pattern of payments from domestic individuals, entities and government agencies that raise significant potential conflicts of interest
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Trump received $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency but fails to mention the exact amount he received from each country or company. This omission makes it difficult for readers to understand the extent of Trump's financial gain and raises questions about why certain countries were chosen over others. Secondly, while the article mentions that China made the most payments to Trump's businesses during his tenure, it does not provide any specific details on how much money was received from each country or company. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to verify the accuracy of these claims and raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Finally, while the article accuses Trump of violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause by profiting from foreign governments without approval, it does not provide any evidence to support this claim or explain why he was able to get away with such behavior for so long.
The article states that Trump received $7.8 million from foreign governments during his presidency but fails to mention the exact amount he received from each country or company.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of the appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites multiple sources without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, there are instances where the author uses inflammatory rhetoric and makes personal attacks against individuals involved in the story.
WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump unconstitutionally profited from the presidency during his tenure in the White House, reaping millions of dollars for his business empire from foreign governments, House Democrats allege
Among its other findings, the report estimated that Saudi Arabia spent at least $615,422 at Trump Tower and Trumps hotel in Washington during Trumps tenure
House Oversight Democrats specifically accuse President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause
The report notes that its findings are incomplete after House Republicans took control of the committee last year and halted the investigation, which the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., started in 2016 when he was the top Democrat on the committee.
House Oversight Democrats also allege Trump violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause due to a “pattern of payments from domestic individuals, entities, and government agencies that raise significant potential conflicts of interest.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that former President Donald Trump received millions of dollars from foreign governments while president. The report by House Democrats accuses him of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause and exploiting his position for financial gain. The article also mentions that Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from corrupt and authoritarian governments, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
House Democrats allege that Trump violated the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause
The report by House Democrats accuses Trump of exploiting his position for financial gain
Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from corrupt and authoritarian governments, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Trump unconstitutionally profited from the presidency during his tenure
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on allegations made by House Democrats that President Trump received millions of dollars from foreign governments while in office. The author is not disclosed and the article does not provide any information about financial ties or personal relationships between the site and its owners.
China spent over $5.5 million at properties owned by Donald Trump while he was in office.
Trump's lawyer said that he planned to donate foreign profits from his hotels to the US Treasury Department, but reportedly donated less than estimated foreign payments made to his properties.
The additional accounting records raise new questions about possible efforts by China and other countries to influence Trump through his companies while he was in office.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Chinese government and its state-controlled entities spent over $5.5 million at properties owned by Donald Trump while he was in office.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by citing a report from House Democrats without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Trump's lawyer donated foreign profits to charity or he profited off of his businesses while in office. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other possibilities such as government intervention through regulations or legal action against Trump's companies. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing China's payments to Trump-owned properties as
China spent over $5.5 million at Donald Trump properties while he was in office
The Chinese government and its state-controlled entities spent millions of dollars from China’s Embassy in the United States, a state-owned Chinese bank accused by the US Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions and a state-owned Chinese air transit company.
Trump declined to impose sanctions on ICBC despite calls from Republican members of Congress.
Bias
(80%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses loaded language such as 'largest total of payments made by any single foreign country known to date' and 'rare practice of foreign governments spending money directly with businesses owned by a sitting president'. This creates an implication that Trump is doing something wrong or unusual, which could be seen as biased. Secondly, the article quotes Democrats on the House Oversight Committee who are critical of Trump's actions. While it is important to include multiple perspectives in news reporting, this can also create a bias towards one side of an issue. Finally, the article mentions that Trump declined to impose sanctions on ICBC despite calls from Republican members of Congress. This could be seen as biased because it implies that Republicans are more likely to support sanctions against China than Democrats.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are critical of Trump's actions
rare practice of foreign governments spending money directly with businesses owned by a sitting president
The largest total of payments made by any single foreign country known to date
Trump declined to impose sanctions on ICBC despite calls from Republican members of Congress.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Zachary Cohen and Kara Scannell have a conflict of interest on the topic of China spending over $5.5 million at Trump properties while he was in office.
The article mentions that ICBC is accused by US Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions, which could be seen as a potential financial tie between Cohen and Scannell and the Chinese government.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Zachary Cohen and Kara Scannell have a conflict of interest on the topics of China, Trump properties, ICBC, North Korea sanctions and Embassy in the United States. They are reporting on information obtained by Democrats from House Oversight Committee which may be biased.
Zachary Cohen is reported to have previously worked for a law firm that represented clients with business interests in China.
The federal government's gross national debt has surpassed $34 trillion, a record high.
Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at Loyola Marymount University,
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the national debt has surpassed $34 trillion which is true but fails to mention that this was achieved years sooner than pre-pandemic projections due to a multi-year pandemic starting in 2020. Secondly, the article quotes Sung Won Sohn stating that Washington has been spending money as if there were unlimited resources, when in fact the national debt includes money that the government owes itself and most policymakers rely on total debt held by public to assess finances. Thirdly, it states that foreign holdings of US debt have dropped significantly but fails to mention that this is due to a decrease in demand for Treasury notes from countries like China, Japan, South Korea and European nations. Lastly the article quotes Shai Akabas stating that if the debt keeps rising uncharted levels it could mean very significant consequences such as spikes in interest rates or recession but fails to mention that these consequences are not inevitable and can be avoided through responsible fiscal policy.
Washington has been spending money as if there were unlimited resources, according to Sung Won Sohn
Foreign holdings of US debt have dropped significantly but this is due to a decrease in demand for Treasury notes from countries like China, Japan, South Korea and European nations.
If the debt keeps rising uncharted levels it could mean very significant consequences such as spikes in interest rates or recession
The steady accrual over years was trickle-down debt driven overwhelmingly by repeated Republican giveaways skewed to big corporations and the wealthy, according to White House spokesman Michael Kikukawa.
The national debt eclipsed $34 trillion several years sooner than pre-pandemic projections due to a multi-year pandemic starting in 2020
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a certain outcome and then cites it as fact without providing any context or evidence for their own analysis. This is a form of informal fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. Additionally, the article contains several instances of inflammatory rhetoric such as
The national debt eclipsed $34 trillion several years sooner than pre-pandemic projections.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the national debt has surpassed $34 trillion. This is an example of monetary bias as it implies that money is being spent recklessly and irresponsibly.
“So far, Washington has been spending money as if we had unlimited resources,”
“The steady accrual over years was “trickle-down debt — driven overwhelmingly by repeated Republican giveaways skewed to big corporations and the wealthy.”
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the US national debt and its impact on various aspects of society. The author mentions several topics related to conflicts of interest such as government borrowing under President Trump and Biden, foreign buyers cutting down their holdings of Treasury notes, growing concern among investors and rating agencies about the trajectory we're on being unsustainable when that turns into a more dire situation is anyone's guess. The article also mentions several experts including Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at Loyola Marymount University, Peterson Foundation CEO Michael Peterson , Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The article discusses growing concern among investors and rating agencies about the trajectory we're on being unsustainable when that turns into a more dire situation is anyone's guess, which could be seen as an example of personal relationships or professional affiliations.
The article mentions foreign buyers cutting down on their holdings of Treasury notes, which could affect the ability for the US to service its debts. This is an example of financial ties that may compromise objectivity.
The article mentions that government borrowing under President Trump and Biden to stabilize the economy and support a recovery could be seen as a conflict of interest.
