How have fact-checkers and major news organizations investigated and debunked specific items on the list?

1. How fact‑checkers choose targets — appetite for high‑impact claims

Major fact‑checking outlets prioritize claims that are viral, politically consequential, or easily testable against public records, such as stimulus check promises, Project 2025 policy items, or speeches to Congress — FactCheck.org and PolitiFact explicitly monitor political claims and public statements for verification ^{[1] [2]}. Full Fact and Poynter describe fact‑checkers’ focus on exaggerated numerical claims and hoaxes spread in election and policy cycles ^{[5] [6]}. Reporters’ Lab and library guides show academic tracking of active fact‑checking projects and databases that help identify repeat misinformation targets ^{[10] [9]}.

2. Methods: documents, data and forensics, applied rigorously

Organizations use documentary evidence — bills, government spending records, official databases — plus forensic techniques for images and video. Reuters and AFP routinely publish itemized investigations (image provenance, geolocation, timestamps) to show when photographs or clips are miscaptioned or recycled ^{[3] [4]}. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact cross‑reference public statements with legislative records and expert estimates to reject erroneous policy claims such as promised tariff‑based “$2,000” checks absent congressional action ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Case studies: what investigators debunked and how

FactCheck.org demonstrated there was no formal program to deliver $2,000 tariff‑based payments and that fiscal experts doubted sufficient revenue existed to fund such checks ^[1]. Reuters used photo and video verification to show that an old photograph of a large family was miscaptioned as a Sheffield, UK, image — classic debunking by provenance tracing ^[3]. PolitiFact and PBS’s fact‑checking of a presidential address tracked economic and policy claims through studies and CBO estimates to show projections and statements that did not match the underlying analyses ^{[11] [12]}.

4. The changing platform landscape: Meta’s withdrawal and its effects

In January 2025 Meta announced it would end its U.S. third‑party fact‑checking program and shift to Community Notes and lighter labels, a move that fact‑checking leaders argued reduces platforms’ distributional support and could undercut fact‑check reach ^{[7] [8]}. Analyses from the European Parliament and legal observers documented that Meta’s change applied to U.S. users and raised regulatory and political implications for content moderation ^{[7] [13]}. Reporters’ Lab counted a modest decline in active projects and warned many fact‑checkers had become dependent on platform funding, a vulnerability highlighted after Meta’s pivot ^[9].

5. Institutional limits and competing views inside the profession

Fact‑checking organizations acknowledge limitations: they cannot force correction of every viral post, nor fully stop repetition of debunked claims; Full Fact and Poynter’s reporting note repeated circulation of already‑debunked numerical claims and hoaxes despite published corrections ^{[5] [6]}. Some platform and political actors argue third‑party checks are biased; Meta’s stated rationale claimed fact‑checking decisions eroded trust and were politically oriented ^{[7] [14]}. Others in the fact‑checking ecosystem counter that independent verification remains essential and that new models must be found to preserve accountability ^{[8] [15]}.

6. What this means for readers and journalists

Readers should expect that fact‑checkers continue to produce detailed, source‑linked rebuttals (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Reuters, AP, AFP and Full Fact remain active publishers) but that platform changes may reduce the visibility and immediacy of those corrections ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [16] [7]}. Scholarly trackers and resource guides support cross‑checking across outlets and databases — the best practice remains to consult multiple established fact‑checks and primary documents rather than rely on social sharing ^{[10] [9]}.

Limitations: available sources document methods, examples, and platform shifts through 2025 but do not provide a comprehensive catalog of every item on any single circulating list; specific list items you have in mind are not found in the provided reporting and would need targeted searches (not found in current reporting).