What fact‑checks have been published about Kamala Harris and allegations of intoxication?

1. The recurring smear: what claims have circulated and when

Since at least 2020, social media posts have repeatedly alleged that Harris was publicly drunk—stories ranged from a 2019 Thanksgiving‑day photo miscaptioned as vomiting at an airport to multiple video clips purportedly showing slurred speech or stumbling—and those narratives resurfaced during her 2024 campaign and vice‑presidency ^{[6] [5] [7] [8]}.

2. The technical reality: altered speed and deep‑editing explain many clips

Fact‑checkers documented a recurring manipulation: clips slowed down approximately 20% or otherwise time‑stretched so that normal speech and gestures appear slowed and slurred; Reuters and AFP showed that the same unedited footage on C‑SPAN or full event videos plays at normal speed and does not support intoxication claims, and researchers used deep‑fake detection tools to identify digital alteration in some viral posts ^{[1] [9] [3] [4]}.

3. What major fact‑checking outlets concluded

PolitiFact repeatedly rated claims that specific videos showed Harris drunk as false and traced several altered posts to deliberate editing; Reuters’ fact‑checks in 2024 labelled multiple slowed or doctored clips “altered,” and AFP likewise found that viral “slurring” segments were the result of slowed playback rather than evidence of intoxication ^{[2] [10] [1] [9] [3]}.

4. Patterns, motivations and the alternate viewpoint

Fact‑checkers note a clear pattern of selective clipping and slowdown to weaponize ordinary delivery moments into an allegation of impairment—an approach common in political disinformation—and while critics of Harris seize on awkward pauses to claim a problem, outlets that examined original footage found no corroborating evidence such as contemporaneous reporting, staff disclosures, or medical confirmation; proponents of the allegations often rely on viral snippets rather than on full recordings or repeatable forensic analysis ^{[5] [2] [1]}.

5. Limits of the reporting: what fact‑checks do not, and cannot, prove

Fact‑checkers are explicit about limits: they can show that specific viral items were altered, slowed or miscaptioned and that no public, verifiable evidence supports intoxication claims in those instances, but they cannot—and did not—claim to adjudicate Harris’ private medical or personal life beyond debunking the posted examples; where no source provided objective tests (blood alcohol, medical records), fact‑checkers declined to assert absolute proof of a negative and focused on disproving the viral evidence presented ^{[8] [5] [7]}.

6. Bottom line: the record of published fact‑checks

The documented record across multiple reputable fact‑checking organizations and newsrooms is consistent: specific viral videos and images alleging Kamala Harris was drunk have been debunked as slowed, edited, or miscontextualized ^{[2] [1] [9] [3]}; the broader claim that she has a drinking problem lacks verified evidence in the public record cited by those checks, though fact‑checkers acknowledge their findings are limited to the incidents examined and do not substitute for private medical verification ^{[7] [8]}.