Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptTrade & Tariffs

I'm not going to make any immediate moves, and the same applies to the tariffs. I'm not going to prejudice my options.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

Independently verified all three cited sources as real, live, and accurately quoted. (1) The NBC/CNBC (Dec 2020) source contains the promise verbatim and frames it as Biden declining to immediately remove Trump's Section 301 China tariffs, wanting a full review first. (2) The bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov Oct 4, 2021 press call transcript confirms the tariffs 'will remain in place during that process' while the exclusions process restarted — the prior rating's ellipsis-quote faithfully matches the transcript. (3) Tax Foundation confirms Biden 'kept nearly all Trump tariffs in place,' with only narrow later modifications. This is a restraint promise (no immediate moves, don't prejudice options) and Biden fulfilled it exactly: no immediate removal on taking office, a statutory USTR review under Katherine Tai, tariffs retained, and options preserved (selectively raised in 2024). FULL is the correct outcome and survives the partisan-neutrality test — a politician of either party who said he would not act immediately and then did not would earn the same label. Not CHAMPIONED (no active leadership effort; it is a pledge of restraint) and not PARTIAL (no element of the pledge was violated). Confidence held at 0.9 given the inherently interpretive nature of a negative/restraint pledge.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →