“We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and 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.
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 re-verified all three cited sources as real, live, and supportive. As president, Trump personally led and enacted the renegotiation of NAFTA: the formal renegotiation process was initiated by the U.S. on May 18, 2017; leaders signed the USMCA on November 30, 2018; Trump signed it into U.S. law (Public Law 116-113) on January 29, 2020; and it entered into force July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. He also drove the U.S.-China Phase One agreement (signed January 15, 2020), which secured Chinese commitments on intellectual property protection and technology transfer — directly addressing the 'stealing our companies' concern — and imposed broad tariffs on China and on steel/aluminum. This is a leader-driven, largely enacted effort well beyond a single supporting vote, so CHAMPIONED (+0.75) is correct rather than FULL, because the outcome-based clause ('stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs') remained contested — economists dispute whether jobs actually returned, the China trade deficit persisted, and China did not meet the Phase One purchase commitments. PARTIAL would under-credit a president who fully renegotiated and enacted replacement trade deals. The same standard applied to any party's leader with this record (driving a full NAFTA replacement to enactment plus a China IP deal) would yield CHAMPIONED, so there is no partisan leniency or harshness. Verdict: CONFIRM the prior rating.
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.