“I promise you there will be a national commission on policing out of the White House where I'll bring everyone to the table, including police chiefs, including civil rights activists, including the NAACP, including the African, the Latino community.”
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.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified. The specific promised deliverable — a White House national commission on policing bringing all stakeholders to the table — was explicitly abandoned: Susan Rice / the Domestic Policy Council put it on hold in April 2021 (The Hill, TIME, Axios), judging that a commission would delay the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. So the literal commission was never created. However, Biden substantively advanced the underlying intent by other means: after the George Floyd Act failed in the Senate, he signed Executive Order 14074 (May 25, 2022), which engaged federal law enforcement and civil rights groups and imposed accountability measures (chokehold ban, no-knock restrictions, body cameras, misconduct database). PolitiFact's nonpartisan Biden Promise Tracker independently rates this 'Compromise' — the exact 'Compromise'/PARTIAL equivalent — for precisely this reason. Adversarial fairness: the abandonment was a redirection of effort toward the same policy goal, not action against it, so this is neither IGNORED, MISALIGNED, nor HOSTILE; and because he actively dropped the commission itself rather than leading it, it is not CHAMPIONED. A politician of either party with this record (named commission scrapped, but an EO advancing the underlying reform and engaging the same stakeholders) would fairly earn PARTIAL under the same standard. Prior rating stands.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee 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 argumentsThese 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.