Adversarial re-check: all four prior sources were independently fetched and are real, live, and accurately quoted; the outcome survives. (1) The promised rate cut did NOT happen. The enrolled text of H.R. 1 (One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025) contains no amendment to the corporate rate under IRC sec. 11, and Manufacturing Dive confirms the law 'preserves the 21% corporate tax rate.' Tax Foundation's glossary still states the federal corporate rate is 21 percent, and a scan of Tax Foundation's blog index through July 21, 2026 shows no 2026 legislation cutting the rate to 15 percent. So as of the verification date the 21% rate is unchanged and the specific 21-to-15 promise is unfulfilled. (2) But a made-in-America-conditioned corporate tax cut WAS enacted and signed by the promisor: H.R. 1 Sec. 70307, 'Special depreciation allowance for qualified production property' (100% expensing for U.S.-located production facilities placed in service before 2031), alongside immediate expensing for DOMESTIC R&D while foreign R&D remains amortized. Tax Foundation quantifies the result: manufacturing 'will see the largest reduction in tax liability in 2026 as a share of their value added' (about $60.3B in 2026). Trump also carried the goal into office, listing 'enacting tax breaks for goods made in America' among the tax priorities he delivered to House leadership in February 2025. CORRECTION to the prior rationale: CRFB did not firmly tie that priority to the 15% plan - it hedges, 'Although there are no specifics ... this could reflect his campaign proposal to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent for domestic manufacturing - or it could represent something more modest.' NOTE on the promise's mechanism: Tax Foundation's analysis of the campaign plan describes it as 'Reinstituting the domestic production activities deduction (DPAD) at 28.5 percent to lower the effective corporate tax rate for domestic production to 15 percent' - i.e. a domestic-production deduction, not a statutory rate change. No DPAD was reinstated and no 15% effective rate was reached, but the enacted domestic-production expensing sits in the same policy family, which is why this is kept-in-part rather than merely attempted. (3) Cross-party fairness test: the direct analog is a president who promises a specific corporate rate change, never moves the rate, but signs a differently-structured corporate tax change aimed at the same beneficiaries (e.g. a 28% rate promise answered by a 15% corporate book minimum tax). That record is conventionally rated PARTIAL, so PARTIAL here is not partisan leniency. CHAMPIONED would be too generous - the evidence that he specifically pushed the 15%/DPAD figure while in office is thin (CRFB expressly says 'no specifics'). ATTEMPTED would be too harsh - something in the promise's direction actually became law. Confidence held moderate at 0.65 because the underlying facts are certain (rate is still 21%; Sec. 70307 is real) while the PARTIAL-vs-ATTEMPTED line is a genuine judgment call about whether expensing counts as partial delivery on a rate promise.