“We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.”
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. Seven days into his term, Trump personally signed Executive Order 13769 (Jan 27, 2017) suspending entry from seven terrorism-associated nations pending new 'extreme vetting' — the 'immediately suspend' element. After litigation he reissued it as EO 13780 (March 2017) and, following a DHS-led worldwide vetting review, as Proclamation 9645 (Sept 24, 2017), 'Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats' — mapping directly onto 'until proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.' The Supreme Court upheld the policy 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii (June 26, 2018); it remained in effect the rest of his term and was expanded to six additional countries in January 2020. This is a self-driven, fully enacted, court-sustained fulfillment of the exact action promised, so FULL is correct rather than CHAMPIONED (which is for efforts not fully enacted). Mirror-test consistent: an official of either party who enacted, litigated to victory, and sustained precisely the promised suspension would earn FULL. The 'not comprehensive' critique (e.g., Saudi Arabia never listed) does not reduce the grade because which nations qualified was itself the output of the promised vetting review. The prior rating's outcome and confidence are sound; sources firmed up to independently reachable ones (the supremecourt.gov PDF is genuine but bot-blocked to fetch).
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.