False political statements are protected under the First Amendment. A core principle is the idea that truth emerges through public debate, and that democracy relies on the ability of citizens to hear all viewpoints, even controversial or incorrect ones. In general society, this makes sense: censoring the general population is dangerous and ensuring everyone speaks only in facts is impossible. But this should not extend to politicians, who have enormous power and responsibility. How can a politician, let alone the President of the US, face no repercussions for spreading information that directly contradicts scientific evidence? Not everything is a matter of opinion. The increased channelised flow of information (e.g. I can easily avoid your inconvenient opinions and the facts that support them) has impeded the “socials checks and balances” that have previously served to keep a lid on politicians' self-dealing and manipulation. “The remedy to false speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” - Justice Louis Brandeis. But each in our echo chambers, getting louder and more isolated, the remedy becomes less effective. An option to compensate for the decreased social checks and balances that sustain healthy democratic discourse: an independent, multi-stakeholder oversight body, run by independent experts, scientists and ethicists and funded by a tax on the media to avoid governmental control, can evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims made by politicians. This body could issue public statements or ratings, e.g. “scientifically supported”, “scientifically unsupported” or “directly contradicts scientific evidence”. It is my opinion that such an unbiased body should have the power to impose penalties on repeat offenders, although many won’t agree because first amendment blablabla. In any case, an established and unbiased body to review the "facts” spat out by those in power might help to derail this train currently heading straight to Doom.