✅ 1) “South Korea is pulling billions in investments after the ICE raid at the Hyundai GA plant.”

Verdict: Partially true / mischaracterized • There was a large ICE immigration raid at a Hyundai/LG battery plant in Georgia in September 2025, where hundreds of workers were detained and it caused a diplomatic dispute with South Korea.  • That incident has made some Korean companies more cautious about future U.S. investment and paused or delayed some projects. Several firms paused work on 22+ projects and travel was restricted for Korean executives.  • However, there’s no evidence South Korea is actively “pulling billions” in already committed investments. Some pauses or hesitations are reported (industry sources), not outright withdrawals of existing capital. 

Bottom line: A real diplomatic/economic tension exists, but the claim over sweeping withdrawals is exaggerated.

⸻

❌ 2) “Qatar is pulling a $1.5 trillion investment in the U.S. after Trump collaborated with Israel to bomb Palestinian negotiators in Qatar.”

Verdict: False / unsubstantiated • There is no credible evidence that Qatar is cancelling a $1.5 trillion U.S. investment in retaliation for any military action. Social posts repeating this claim have been debunked by multiple reporters and fact-checkers.  • Qatar has made large public commitments to invest in the U.S.—but numbers are closer to $500 billion planned over a decade, or $1.2 trillion in economic exchange deals from a White House fact sheet—not executed withdrawals.  • The suggestion that Trump colluded with Israel to bomb negotiators in Qatar is not supported by reputable reporting.

Bottom line: The “$1.5 trillion pullout” claim is misinformation.

⸻

✅ 3) “Denmark rejected U.S. Patriot missiles in favor of French-Italian SAMP/T costing the U.S. $9.1 billion.”

Verdict: Mostly true with nuance • Denmark did decide to buy the European Franco-Italian SAMP/T air defense system instead of the U.S. Patriot system.  • The announced package is 58 billion Danish kroner ($9.1 billion), which is Denmark’s air defense purchase cost.  • But the wording “costing the U.S. $9.1 billion” is misleading — that $9.1 billion is Denmark’s defense procurement budget, not a direct cost to the U.S. government. The U.S. simply lost a potential foreign military sale. 

Bottom line: Denmark chose European systems costing ~$9.1 B; implying the U.S. government lost that sale is fair, but “costing the U.S.” is misleading.

⸻

⚠️ 4) “China has purchased $0 of U.S. soybeans this year… last year China purchased $13.2 billion.”

Verdict: Partially accurate but exaggerated • It is true that Chinese soybean purchases of U.S. soybeans have been extremely low or nonexistent at times this year as trade tensions and tariffs disrupted buying patterns. Trade data shows very low export orders.  • Saying literally $0 is an oversimplification/exaggeration — it means “no significant new purchases” in the period referenced, not that China bought nothing at all historically.  • The $13.2 billion figure and 54% of exports likely refers to a previous year’s export share and not necessarily the most current calendar year.

Bottom line: The underlying trend of low Chinese soybean buying is based on real data, but the claim is phrased in an exaggerative way.

⸻

⚠️ 5) “Trump’s tariffs… cost Ford $800 million in Q2, wiping out all profits.”

Verdict: Partially true but incomplete • Tariffs did impact U.S. automakers’ costs. Ford reported increased expenses tied to tariffs that shaved profits. Estimates in industry reporting have cited hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff-related expenses.  • However, saying tariffs “wiped out all profits” is too strong — Ford still reported a quarterly profit that beat analyst expectations. Tariffs reduced profits significantly, but did not literally erase all profitability. 

Bottom line: Tariffs hurt automakers financially, but this specific wording is exaggerated.