First off, I do not subscribe to, nor do I poo poo this premise.
I want to point out that anybody' needs to discern what they read while considering the source.
In this case, the source is Reuters.
On a scale from USA Patriot to Globalist Agenda, where do YOU view Reuters to sit on that scale?
My direct witnessing of their coverage only goes back to the Vietnam War, where in they were quite obviously spouting the Globalist Line (although it had not been named as such at the time). They have been VERY consistent over the years never wavering from that line.
In MY mind, this makes them part of the INTERNATIONAL Propaganda Media. Your view may vary. If so, I encourage you to research for yourself who owns and operates Reuters. Are they outside the scope of the Big Media you know to be bought? I think you find otherwise.
Additionally, when anybody starts a Article Title with FACT CHECK: , it raises the hair on the back of my neck because if they weren't getting ready to blow smoke up my ass, they wouldn't need to start with such an implication. That is one means [they] use to put a normie at ease and swallow whatever nonsense [they] follow it with.
From the article:
The posts’ claim that Donald Trump will retain control of the military until March 21, 2021, 60 days after Biden’s inauguration, is likely a misinterpretation of the act’s stipulation to “extend support provided by the General Services Administration (GSA) to the President- and Vice President-elect for up to 60 days after the inauguration”.
Weighing that statement you will quickly find it is NO STATEMENT at all.
It is 'an opinion' about 'an interpretation' of what 'they think'.
To a discerning, logically thinking mind, this actually makes it appear as a possibility that was not likely even thought about before.
What to [they] want you to think?
That whole article is suspect as fuck.