PolitiFact is an independent fact-checking organization dedicated to helping the public sort fact from fiction in American politics. Teen Vogue has teamed up with PolitiFact to bring rigorously fact-checked information to Teen Vogue readers. To submit a claim that you think PolitiFact should check, click here.

When President Donald Trump announced on June 1 that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, his justification included many confusing claims that lacked evidence and context. His speech cited controversial research and suggested the agreement is unfair to the U.S., when the agreement is technically nonbinding and asks for voluntary commitment and individual target-setting from each country to help curtail global greenhouse gas emissions.

For starters, Trump opened his speech by saying his team was busy tracking a terrorist attack in the Philippines. However, CNN reported that although ISIS has claimed responsibility for the June 2 attack in Manila, police say there is “no truth” to the claim, and that they believe it was carried out by a lone man aiming to rob gamblers.

Next, the president claimed the Paris Agreement would result in "lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production." All of the related statistics he cited came from a March 2017 study, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting,which several economic and environmental professors consider incomplete or misleading. Among them: Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham, who told ClimateFeedback.org that the study relies on hypothetical regulations that aren’t set in stone. "One could easily model other actions with much lower costs," Gillingham told the site, in response to similar arguments made in an anti–Paris Agreement op-ed by Senator Ted Cruz published on CNN earlier this week. "The NERA model provides useful information, but it is important for it to be taken in context of model results from other models and not cherry-picked as was done here."

Then Trump complained the climate deal favors India and China over the United States, because both Asian countries would supposedly be allowed to increase coal production.

"China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement," Trump said. "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours."

But the Paris Agreement does not dictate what each country can and can’t do with regard to how it chooses to reduce emissions. Instead, each signatory nation has set its own goals and has to report on its progress. Politico reported that the burdens Trump referred to in his speech are “imaginary.”

Trump also spoke to American energy needs using what economists have said are unrealistic growth predictions. “At 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts," Trump said on Thursday.

PolitiFact checked in with several economists on the left, right, and center. The most bullish among them were skeptical about the chances of reaching 3 percent on a consistent basis. The majority were downright pessimistic. Given the current data and situation, experts said Trump’s expected growth rate was highly unlikely, meaning Trump’s concerns about growth-related energy needs seem unwarranted.

Overall, after weeks of fact-checking Trump’s statements, PolitiFact found 68 percent of what he said is false, whether partially or completely. For comparison, 26 percent of fact-checked statements from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were deemed at least partially false. Even compared to other members of the Trump administration, the president’s penchant for false statements stands out. PolitiFact found 47 percent of the statements by Vice President Mike Pence had more inaccuracies than truth.