A case of PolitiFact inflating Michael Moore's grade (Updated)

An old post at PolitiFact Bias slammed PolitiFact for grading "False" Rush Limbaugh's claim that some of the wealthiest Americans are Black.

We started a more formal survey today of the way PolitiFact treats the term "wealthiest Americans." The first hit gave us a new story to write, albeit PolitiFact used the term of the 400 wealthiest Americans precisely because filmmaker/activist Michael Moore was talking about the 400 wealthiest Americans.

We assert that the "True" rating represents grade inflation. "True" supposedly applies when "The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing."

What do we say is missing?

Moore doesn't specify the least-wealthy half of Americans.  PolitiFact automatically treats Moore's claim as though he did specify the bottom half.

Since Moore’s statistics were for 2009, we sought figures for 2010.

The 2010 net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion, Forbes reported in September 2010. That same month, the total U.S. net worth was $54.9 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Board report cited by Moore.

Wolff hasn’t updated his 2009 figures. So we used his 2.3 percent figure again, multiplied by the 2010 total net worth of $54.9 trillion, and found that the net worth of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion in 2010.

That’s less than the 2010 net worth for the Forbes 400.

There it is.

PolitiFact does calculations to estimate the "poorest 60 percent" of U.S. households possessed a net worth of $1.26 trillion, which counts as less than the estimated $1.37 trillion for the Forbes 400. Then in its summary paragraph PolitiFact represents the results of its calculations as a confirmation of Moore's claim:

(O)ur assessment indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals exceeds the net worth of half of all American households.

An alternative calculation (let's call these "alternative facts" to tweak the fact-checkers for taking that famous comment out of context) says $54.9 trillion minus [$1.37 trillion plus $1.26 trillion] equals $52.3 trillion. One-half of $52.3 trillion is over $26 trillion, and $26 trillion in wealth exceeds $1.37 trillion in wealth.

Moore's statement was imprecise. PolitiFact excused the imprecision as though it did not exist, despite claiming in its statement of principles that it considers "Is there another way to read the statement? Is the statement open to interpretation?"

Yes, there's another way to read the statement. Moore's statement may be read as referring to half of all Americans without a focus on the poorer half.

We cheerfully grant that Moore's audience was likely to assume he meant the least wealthy half of Americans. On the other hand, Michele Bachmann's audience was likely to assume she was referring to income taxes and not all forms of taxation when PolitiFact assumed otherwise and panned Bachmann with a "False" rating.

Sometimes you get a pass. Sometimes you don't. And if you're a Democrat or a liberal, PolitiFact is more likely to give you a pass.

Update May 21, 2026: I've been doing evaluations of PolitiFact for so long that sometimes I forget I did a ton of them on my original blog, "Sublime Bloviations." This fact check of Michael Moore was among them. Next time I go back over 14 years I'll remember to scan Sublime Bloviations to make sure I'm not covering the same material again.

PolitiFact effortlessly extends exaggerated charitable interpretation to Democrat's claim

We encourage charitable interpretation when interpreting political claims. Fact checkers, for example, should follow contextual indicators showing when statements are meant literally. Conversely, fact checkers should look for and follow clues when a politician uses hyperbole.

Done properly, charitable interpretation looks at statements in the reasonable sense that places the speaker in the most favorable light.

PolitiFact, however, tends to apply charitable interpretation with a partisan lens.

Do we have a new example in mind? Of course:

As we descend down the article to its deck, PolitiFact refines Kaptur's claim.

Then PolitiFact does its customary summary box, "If Your Time Is Short," which immediately starts to undermine Kaptur's claim, which PolitiFact has labeled "Mostly True."

Both bullet points pair uneasily with the Democrat's claim:

A Senate bill seeks $1 billion for security features for the White House’s East Wing Modernization project, which includes the ballroom.

Kaptur's saying the $1 billion is for the ballroom. The bullet point says the money goes for the "East Wing Modernization project, which includes the ballroom." 

So, how much is going for the ballroom itself and how much for other aspects of the project, PolitiFact? Doesn't it make a difference?

Second bullet point:

The bill said the money can’t be used for non-security elements. Separating security and non-security construction is tricky, experts said.

The expert who doesn't count, Steven Smith, said separating the costs can be done, in effect:

Steven Smith, an Arizona State University political scientist who studies Congress, said lawmakers have tools to scrutinize spending, including holding hearings that demand detailed plans and aggressive oversight of all project contracts and developments.

The question is whether Congress — especially under the control of Republicans who are reluctant to rein in Trump — is willing to exercise oversight.

If the latter paragraph came from Smith, PolitiFact should have made that clear. As is, it looks like it's PolitiFact's skepticism, not Smith's, regarding the question of congressional oversight.

So, the bill itself says the money can't be used to fund the ballroom except for security features.

Doesn't that make Kaptur's claim misleading at best? Charitable interpretation bids us to visit the context for clues. Let's start with PolitiFact's presentation, however:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, reshared a post with a budget breakdown for the bill. 

"The American people are weathering $5 gas, $6 diesel, and skyrocketing fertilizer costs because of the war of choice in Iran," Kaptur wrote May 5 on X. "And now the GOP want you to pay $1 Billion for a ballroom."

Kaptur's X post quote-shared Jake Sherman's post, making PolitiFact's description less than fully accurate. Kaptur's post, without expanding the quoted post, shows nothing from Sherman's post regarding the East Wing Project costs.

Clicking the quoted post would enable X users to see all of  Sherman's post and the link to the text of the bill, which doesn't mention "ballroom."

In fact, it's clear from the text of the bill that the bulk of the funding is unlikely to contribute to the funding of a ballroom unless we assume the worst of the administration and congressional oversight.

12 (a) APPROPRIATION.—In addition to amounts other-

wise available, there is appropriated to the United States13

Secret Service, for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in14

the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,000,000,000,15

to remain available until September 30, 2029, for the pur-16

poses of security adjustments and upgrades, including17

within the perimeter fence of the White House Compound18

to support enhancements by the United States Secret19

Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project,20

including above-ground and below-ground security fea-21

tures.22

(b) LIMITATION.—None of the funds made available23

under this section may be used for non-security elements24

of the East Wing Modernization Project.25

6

MDM26A10 9PR S.L.C.

(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘East1

Wing Modernization Project’’ means the project with the2

file number 8733 entitled ‘‘East Wing Modernization3

Project’’ for which the preliminary and final site and4

building plans were approved by the National Capital5

Planning Commission on April 2, 2026.

Kaptur's claim appears to take for granted the bill doesn't mean what it says when it forbids using the funds for non-security features of the East Wing Project. Despite the wording of the bill, Kaptur says the legislators who wrote it want the $1 billion spent on "a ballroom."

And PolitiFact pretty much just goes along with it.

The text of Kaptur's X post presents the "ballroom" expense contrasted against the daily expenses of Americans. It's evidently an attempt to show Republican indifference to economic challenges by frivolously spending a great deal on "a ballroom."

Kaptur could have called it "the East Wing Project" to match the wording of the bill. "Ballroom" as a word choice would appeal more to someone attempting to misrepresent the nature of the spending to an audience.

If only there were an objective, IFCN-verified fact-checking organization that could make sense for Kaptur of the $1 billion appropriation instead of amplifying her distortion.

But no. PolitiFact instead confirms the bill, as designed, funds a list of security features and has language excluding non-security features such as the ballroom. There's no estimate from PolitiFact as to how much money, if any, would end up paying for the ballroom proper aside from security features. Kaptur gets "Mostly True" credit if any part of the $1 billion is spent on the ballroom, and the fact checkers apparently assume that will happen along with assuming that's what the GOP legislators wanted.