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.

Press secretary Sean Spicer was under fire again this week for incongruous statements at a White House press conference. This time, he claimed flood levees and fences along the southern border were actually the wall President Trump promised to build along the Mexican border.

Even the conservative outlet Breitbart criticized Spicer for inaccurate statements. (One such Breitbart article opened with: “President Donald Trump’s White House communications team is claiming inaccurately that there is border wall funding in the spending bill before Congress right now.”) So far, there doesn’t appear to be a clear plan to fund the type of wall Trump has promised since the 2016 campaign.

The BBC has described Breitbart as “Trump’s favorite news site,” and the publication was once led by Trump advisor Steve Bannon. What this tells us is that even Trump supporters find it difficult to trust the messages coming out of the White House these days — it’s why we’ve teamed up with PolitiFact to help you tell fact from fiction. Here are the lies the White House has told since last Friday, April 28.

1. Trump and Spicer both said the GOP healthcare proposal includes coverage for pre-existing conditions.

On Sunday, Trump told CBS News that “pre-existing conditions are in the bill,” referring to the GOP healthcare bill Republicans hope will replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In fact, CNN and many other outlets reported that the GOP plan weakens protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

In the days before Obamacare, insurance companies were legally allowed to consider medical treatment for domestic violence or sexual assault as pre-existing conditions. The Obama administration mandated that insurers couldn’t deny coverage or charge more to those with pre-existing conditions. But under the new healthcare bill, which the House of Representatives passed on Thursday, pre-existing conditions could once again be used to determine price of coverage in certain circumstances. An amendment added to the bill would allow states to request waivers to opt out of the Affordable Care Act mandate that prohibits insurance companies from charging more to those with pre-existing conditions, if the state set up alternative means of insurance, such as “high-risk pools” or federal risk-sharing programs. (Though, according to The New York Times experts say even the $100-plus billion set aside in the bill to help pay for the federal risk-sharing programs would only pay for a fraction of those who need coverage.)

Experts told PolitiFact that insurance could cost more for people with pre-existing conditions because the amendment lets insurers set premiums based on the person’s “health status.” Insurers would be allowed to charge higher premiums to those who’ve let coverage lapse, a provision that would disproportionately affect lower-income Americans, many of whom have struggled to maintain coverage.

“Health status underwriting is literally charging a higher (possibly much, unaffordably, higher) premium to people with pre-existing conditions,” Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University School of Law emeritus professor, told PolitiFact. “Under the MacArthur amendment, they could not be refused coverage, but insurers could impose high enough premiums that coverage would be unaffordable.”