35

According to this picture (shared over 100k times)

enter image description here

Text reads,

Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23

Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4

I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size.

motoDrizzt
  • 739
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10
Evan Carroll
  • 28,401
  • 42
  • 129
  • 239
  • 4
    I wonder if Trump donated his salary to [that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/27/michael-cohen-testimony-trump-painting-foundation-money)... – einpoklum Aug 18 '19 at 21:38
  • 4
    Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help. – RedSonja Aug 19 '19 at 08:17
  • @RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle). – Faris Aug 19 '19 at 17:18

2 Answers2

78

As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).

The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:

Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.

The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.

This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".

So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)

The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):

Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.

In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.

Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):

Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.

With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):

That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:

First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.

[...]

Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.

And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:

Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.

Community
  • 1
DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/97505/discussion-on-answer-by-devsolar-did-michelle-obama-have-a-staff-of-23-and-mela). – Sklivvz Aug 16 '19 at 17:42
  • 4
    Take your political opinions to chat, please. – Oddthinking Aug 18 '19 at 15:43
  • @DevSolar, it's pretty clear from context they are just talking about *salary* for being President, not gifts, awards, investment income, etc. Trump is not donating 100% of his dividends. – Paul Draper Jan 02 '20 at 08:29
14

This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.

Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:

Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.

They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 3
    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults. – vol7ron Aug 18 '19 at 16:04
  • 4
    @vol7ron: This is an *ad hominem* attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: [FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.](https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/)) – Oddthinking Aug 19 '19 at 02:36
  • 1
    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use. – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 03:44
  • 2
    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what *ad hominem* means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any *reason* to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"? – DevSolar Aug 19 '19 at 06:36
  • 2
    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. _ad hominem_ is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source? – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 10:27
  • 1
    @vol7ron: Ref. [ad hominem, circumstantial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial), [appeal to authorities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeals_to_authorities). We're still argueing to and fro about Snopes as a source, not the statements made. Do you have any *reason* to cast doubt on the Forbes / Reuters / White House / Politico / Fox News references? Have you *read* them, or did you stop at "it's Snopes, it's biased, I am not reading further because it's not conservative enough to pass judgement or make a summary"? – DevSolar Aug 19 '19 at 11:28
  • @Oddthinking calling out an argument as ad hominem does not make it so! Snopes has a long history of bias. They are not an academic journal. They are also not a primary source but a launching point for real investigation, much like Wikipedia. What is the name for the logical fallacy where someone accuses the other of committing a logical fallacy when they did not? Instead of merely claiming "ad hominem" please enlighten us as to why Snopes is such a great source of information and immune to accusations of bias? In their own FAQ they claim no infallibity, no authority. – geoO Aug 19 '19 at 12:01
  • 1
    @geoO: ...and **still** the talk is about the "credibility" of Snopes instead of the **content** of the linked article... – DevSolar Aug 19 '19 at 12:19
  • @DevSolar as stated in comment, I’m not against using Snopes or OddThinking’s answer, much like I’m not against using other political commentary as used in other answers. I just wish the answer expanded on it further. Something to the effect of “Snopes has declared it as false because of...(listing of reasons and sources)” rather than posting a quick summarization of their conclusions as an answer. Without a more thorough description, Snopes is being used as a definitive source based on their reputation; as such, I left a comment describing that there is bias in fact-checking sites. – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 12:24
  • 1
    @geoO: You've missed my point. What makes Snopes a good source, when it is a good source, is that it provides references and reflects those sources in its article. Sometimes it doesn't do that - sometimes that is deliberate. In this instance, it does do that. Dismissing an article out of hand because it comes from Snopes is *ad hominem*. I reject that Snopes has a political bias strong enough to doubt their research; I provide evidence that another expert source agrees with my assessment. – Oddthinking Aug 19 '19 at 13:19
  • 1
    I understand your point and I disagree. Click the sources button in a Snopes article, follow through links and then debate the merits of those sources. You say "I reject that Snopes has a political bias strong enough to doubt their research." Good for you. I again disagree. What if I said Breitbart or Infowars were valid sources? Would it be ad hominem to a priori reject their analysis? Not places I get my data but you see the point. Use bipartisan gov't sources, the New York Times, or academic journals, etc or you risk becoming just another echo chamber. Your defense of Snopes is curious. – geoO Aug 19 '19 at 13:37
  • @geoO: I do not reject Breitbart and Infowars as valid sources, to the degree their references support their claims. Your defense of [New York Times](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times) is curious! – Oddthinking Aug 19 '19 at 15:28
  • Assume a person has no familiarity with Snopes, or the article, and read the answer here. Your comment suggests that a reader is required to refer to the Snopes article for context, clarity, and research. There’s a lot of “they said” without including more details. I am not sure how this forum operates (perhaps that’s an acceptable answer), but other StackExchange communities require removing the burden from the reader, include the pertinent details in answer, if not to decouple from external links that might be broken in the future. – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 22:52
  • 1
    To add, on the merits of Snopes itself. I’ve seen cases where their research is nice and thorough (as objective as it can be), but the arrived at conclusions have been inconsistent. For instance, there was an accusation that a political figurehead did something to someone (imagine accusation of rape). Snopes investigated it and found that the action occurred, but the name of the victim was wrong and the exact date was, so declared it “mostly false”. That is misleading, when people search to see if this person “raped” they read mostly false, but they did. – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 22:59
  • Snopes gave greater weight to the less significant details. If they were consistent in this regard, that would be one thing, but I had read a similar article weeks later and the same logic was not applied. This happened a couple years ago and since then I’ve probably been jaded, but to me it highlighted that a site touted as an objective fact-checking site, which for reputation’s sake should be very sensitive to their slightest inconsistencies, was not. How widespread? I’m uncertain, but I didn’t see a message of caution as a bad thing; especially, since people take fact checking sites as WOG – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 23:06
  • Note: the article I was referencing has since been modified, with the rating changed, so that restores some of my confidence. – vol7ron Aug 19 '19 at 23:44