Eye on America: Macho Spouse supports military husbands, and an exclusive tour of CIA HQ
Eye on America: Macho Spouse supports military husbands, and an exclusive tour of CIA HQ

In Illinois, we meet the founder of Macho Spouse, a group dedicated to providing connection and support to husbands of active duty service members. And in Virginia, we tour a century-old family home located within the CIA’s top-secret headquarters. Watch these stories and more on “Eye on America” with host Michelle Miller.
Read the full article on CBS US
Truth Analysis
Analysis Summary:
The article appears mostly accurate based on the provided sources. The claims about Macho Spouse and the CIA tour are supported by the sources. There's minimal bias, presenting the information in a straightforward manner.
Detailed Analysis:
- Claim:** In Illinois, we meet the founder of Macho Spouse, a group dedicated to providing connection and support to husbands of active duty service members.
- Verification Source #2: Supports this claim, stating "In Illinois, we meet the founder of Macho Spouse..."
- Verification Source #5: Supports this claim, stating "And I meet the founder of Macho Spouse ... support to husbands of active..."
- Claim:** And in Virginia, we tour a century-old family home located within the CIA’s top-secret headquarters.
- Verification Source #2: Supports this claim, stating "...CIA's top-secret headquarters. Watch..."
- Verification Source #5: Supports this claim, stating "tours a century-old family home located within the CIA's top secret headquarters."
- Claim:** Watch these stories and more on "Eye on America" with host Michelle Miller.
- Verification Source #1: Supports this claim, as the video is part of the "Eye on America" series on YouTube.
- Verification Source #5: Supports this claim, as Michelle Miller is the host.
Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:
- Verification Source #2 and #5 both confirm the segments on Macho Spouse and the CIA tour.
- Verification Source #1 confirms the show title and format.
- Verification Source #3 and #4 are irrelevant to the claims in the article.