“I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator and identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers.”
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. On Aug 5, 2019 the U.S. Treasury, at Trump's direction, formally designated China a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994 -- the exact directive promised. Trump personally drove this: his own Treasury Secretary (Mnuchin) had declined to make the designation in the semiannual FX reports throughout 2017-early 2019, and the designation came only when Trump pressed for it amid the trade war. Treasury also carried out the second half of the promise -- identifying foreign trade abuses via the semiannual FX monitoring list and the USTR Section 301 investigation into China's practices. This exceeds ATTEMPTED because the promised action actually landed, and exceeds PARTIAL because the politician personally LED his reluctant agency to enact it. It falls short of FULL because Treasury reversed the designation on Jan 13, 2020 as a Phase One trade-deal concession, so the label was not durably maintained. The nonpartisan PolitiFact Trump-O-Meter rated the same delay-then-reverse pattern 'Compromise.' Applying a party-neutral standard, an executive who overrides his own agency to enact a promised action but then reverses it as a negotiating concession fits CHAMPIONED (led + enacted, not fully durable). Confidence 0.7 reflects genuine bucket ambiguity between FULL/CHAMPIONED/PARTIAL, resolved to CHAMPIONED on the leadership-plus-enactment record.
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.