What are documented failures of Julie Green’s specific prophecies and how were they reported?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Julie Green, a self-described prophet closely tied to MAGA circles, has made a string of high-profile forecasts that did not come to pass — notably predicting Trump would be declared “innocent,” alleging Joe Biden is a dead body double, and foretelling the death of Queen Elizabeth at the hands of Prince Charles — and those failures have been documented and criticized across mainstream and niche outlets [1] [2] [3]. Reporting on these misses has mixed straight fact-checking, political context, and coverage of Green’s own responses and platform, with outlets like Newsweek, Rolling Stone and specialist prophecy trackers both cataloguing the claims and noting how her followers and she herself react when prophecies fail [1] [2] [4].
1. Failed high‑profile legal prediction: “Innocent” verdict for Trump and the media response
Julie Green publicly said God told her a breaking announcement would render Donald Trump “innocent” and that the hush‑money case would “fall apart,” a prophecy pushed on her channels before the trial concluded; when the jury returned a guilty verdict, reporting from Newsweek documented the mismatch and noted Green doubled down by reinterpreting the message rather than retracting it outright, a pattern news outlets flagged as a common response among modern prophecy figures [1].
2. Sensational royal and political claims that did not happen
Rolling Stone chronicled several of Green’s more lurid assertions — including the claim that Prince Charles would murder Queen Elizabeth and that the real Joe Biden is dead with a body double controlled by Barack Obama — claims that were presented as prophetic warnings and that mainstream media treated as demonstrably false or wildly speculative after events unfolded without those outcomes [2].
3. Pattern‑tracking by prophecy monitors and skeptical commentators
Closer to archiving than reporting, prophecy trackers and indexes capture Green’s specific pronouncements (for example, predicted “strokes” appearing in news with “staggering and unusual” numbers), which creates a record used to test fulfillment over time; such databases show how prophecies are phrased and later evaluated, enabling critics to point to unmet specifics while supporters point to ambiguous language or delayed timing [4].
4. How reporting framed failures: fact‑checking, context, and the politics of prophecy
Mainstream reports framed Green’s missed predictions not only as failed forecasts but as political messaging: Newsweek positioned her “overthrow” prophecy within her pattern of blending spiritual claims with right‑wing politics and noted the skeptical social‑media reaction, while Rolling Stone highlighted her role at GOP‑adjacent events and the potential political utility of dramatic prophecy for MAGA audiences [3] [2]. This dual framing — religious claim plus political context — shaped coverage to treat failures as newsworthy both for accuracy and influence.
5. Responses from Green’s camp and doctrinal defenders
Julie Green Ministries retains an archive of her prophecies and broadcasts them on its channels, and the ministry cautions about imitation accounts while continuing to publish prophetic material, which supporters cite when critics point to unfulfilled predictions [5]. Meanwhile, faith‑based commentators and analysts apply theological tests — for example, Deuteronomy’s criteria for a true prophet — to judge her accuracy, producing internal debates about whether missed prophecies disqualify her [6]. Sources differ: some defenders reframe timing or spiritual interpretation as the explanation, while critics insist on concrete falsification.
6. What is documented, and what remains unproven
Documentation shows specific, dated claims that did not match subsequent events (guilty verdicts where innocence was predicted; no royal murders; no verified evidence Biden is a dead double), and reporting catalogs Green’s repetition on political stages and streaming channels as part of how those claims spread [1] [2] [5]. Where the available reporting is limited — for instance on whether every prophecy was publicly timestamped in a retrievable archive or how followers interpret long‑range predictions — the record is less complete and requires further primary sourcing from Green’s own media logs and follower testimony [5] [4].