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 KeptEconomy, Taxes & Inflation

NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country. We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our jobs.

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: 95%

The concrete, measurable pledge is to renegotiate NAFTA. Independently verified via primary sources: Trump notified Congress of intent to renegotiate (May 2017), talks concluded Sept 30, 2018, USMCA signed Nov 30, 2018 (revised protocol Dec 10, 2019), implementing legislation passed the House 385-41 (Dec 19, 2019) and Senate 89-10 (Jan 16, 2020), was signed into law Jan 29, 2020 as Public Law 116-113, and entered into force July 1, 2020, formally replacing NAFTA. The promise was therefore not merely attempted or championed but fully enacted and in force during his term, so FULL (kept essentially 100%) is correct rather than CHAMPIONED. The broader 'stop these countries from stealing our jobs' rhetoric is aspirational framing rather than a discrete measurable pledge, and disputes over USMCA's actual employment impact do not negate that he renegotiated as promised. Applied neutrally: a politician of either party who promised to renegotiate a named trade deal and secured a signed-into-law, in-force replacement would earn FULL. Prior rating confirmed.

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 →