Have Julie Green's past prophecies about public figures been accurate or verifiable?

1. What Green herself publishes and how it’s presented

Julie Green’s ministry maintains a public archive of daily prophecies and media, noting that prophecies are cataloged by the date the word was received rather than by publication date, and warning that multiple social accounts purport to represent her ^[2]; the ministry’s site shows frequent, topical pronouncements about politics and public figures ^[1], creating a record that can be referenced but not always time-stamped in ways that independent fact-checkers prefer.

2. Specific high-profile predictions that drew scrutiny

Critical reporting and commentary single out concrete, politically charged prophecies—claims that former President Trump would be restored to the presidency in 2021–2022, predictions that prominent Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney would be tried for treason, forecasts that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats would die before the 2022 midterms, and apocalyptic-sounding geopolitical warnings like Canada joining Iran against the U.S.—all of which, as reported, have not occurred and have driven accusations of a consistently poor accuracy record ^[3].

3. Critics’ assessment: failed track record and political function

Commentators and conservative critics have labeled Green’s track record as effectively zero-percent accurate, using the unfulfilled public predictions above to argue she is a false prophet and that her work fuels political superstition rather than reliable foresight ^[3]; scholars and columnists add that prophecy in this milieu often serves to mobilize a constituency and reflect political hopes rather than produce verifiable forecasts, meaning unfulfilled predictions are politically useful even when objectively false ^[5].

4. Supporters’ stance: disputed hits, conditional prophecy, and ecclesial context

Supporters and some sympathetic Christian writers counter that Green has had “numerous prophecies that have come to pass,” argue that prophecies can be conditional or symbolic, and insist that believers interpret fulfillment differently than secular critics do ^{[4] [6]}; these defenders note theological frameworks—such as conditional prophecy or delayed fulfillment—that complicate a simple accuracy tally, and they push back against what they call hostile or politicized readings of prophetic language ^[6].

5. The record-keeping and verifiability problem

Independent verification is hampered by three cataloging problems visible in the sources: prophecies are posted across platforms and dated by receipt not publication ^[2], social accounts sometimes impersonate the ministry ^[2], and prophetic language often mixes specific claims with symbolic or conditional phrasing that resists straightforward true/false adjudication ^{[2] [6]}. Because of that, even defenders’ claims that “numerous prophecies” came true lack easily auditable, independent timelines in the public record cited here ^[4].

6. Conclusion — accuracy verdict and what’s provable

Based on available reporting, many of Julie Green’s public-figure prophecies that attracted media attention—especially explicit political forecasts tied to the 2020s—have not been fulfilled and are cited by critics as evidence of a poor predictive record ^[3]; proponents dispute that assessment and stress different interpretive standards and some alleged fulfilled items ^{[4] [6]}, but independent verifiability is limited by the ministry’s publication practices and the conditional, often partisan nature of the pronouncements ^{[2] [5]}. The strongest, supportable conclusion from the sources at hand is that high-profile political prophecies attributed to Green have notable, documented non-fulfillments, while claims of a positive hit rate depend on contested theological interpretation and selective examples rather than a transparent, auditable ledger ^{[3] [4] [2]}.