This is a CONDITIONAL restraint promise ('not...until we have made major investments here at home and in our workers'), so it is kept if the domestic-investment condition is satisfied before any new trade agreement is entered. Both tests are met. (1) Condition: Biden signed historic domestic investments in his first two years -- the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Nov 2021) and the CHIPS and Science Act plus the Inflation Reduction Act (both Aug 2022). (2) Restraint: his administration pursued no traditional/comprehensive market-access free trade agreement and never sought Trade Promotion Authority, adopting an explicitly 'worker-centered' trade policy; the Cambridge/German Law Journal analysis quotes the exact pledge and confirms new FTAs were deprioritized. The only wrinkle is a set of NARROW trade agreements (US-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement, Mar 2023; US-Taiwan 21st-Century Trade First Agreement, signed 1 Jun 2023 and enacted as Public Law 118-13 on 7 Aug 2023) -- but each was signed AFTER the major investments, so the 'until' condition was already satisfied, and none contain tariff/market-access commitments (per American Action Forum). Adversarial mirror-test: a same-record promise from either party would earn the same label -- restraint on comprehensive FTAs was total and the investment precondition was clearly met. FULL is fair, not lenient. Confidence held at 0.8 because the absolutist phrasing ('any new trade agreement with anybody') leaves a defensible literal reading under which the narrow signed agreements count as 'trade agreements'; that interpretive ambiguity, not any partisan tilt, caps confidence. Sources independently re-verified: the Cambridge article is real and quotes the promise verbatim; congress.gov confirms the one binding trade agreement he did sign; American Action Forum confirms its narrow scope.