“We need bilateral trade deals. We do not need to enter into another massive international agreement that ties us up and binds us down.”
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. Both halves of this directional trade-policy promise were fulfilled by concrete presidential action, and all cited sources are real and supportive. (1) Avoiding another 'massive international agreement': On Jan 23, 2017 Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the U.S. to 'withdraw the United States as a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to permanently withdraw the United States from TPP negotiations' and to 'begin pursuing, wherever possible, bilateral trade negotiations.' USTR formally notified signatories that 'the United States has formally withdrawn from the agreement per guidance from the President.' No new multilateral mega-bloc was joined; USMCA was a renegotiation of the existing NAFTA, not entry into a new massive agreement. (2) Bilateral deals: the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement and U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement entered into force Jan 1, 2020, and the U.S.-China 'Phase One' agreement was signed Jan 15, 2020. Adversarial fairness check: the same decisive executive record would earn FULL for either party. Minor interpretive latitude (the bilateral deals were limited 'phase one/stage one' deals rather than comprehensive FTAs) does not undercut the promise's plain directional terms, which were executed. FULL, not CHAMPIONED/PARTIAL, because both stated conditions were met.
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.