Independently re-verified. All three sources in the prior rating are real, live, and accurately quoted; I additionally retrieved the underlying PolitiFact update article (Louis Jacobson, Feb. 19, 2026) that the tracker page links to, which corroborates the body facts. KEPT SIDE: PolitiFact's Feb. 2026 review states 'The rules governing Social Security benefits remain the same as when Trump took office January 2025,' and FactCheck.org states 'As president, Trump has not proposed cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits.' No change to the retirement age has been proposed or enacted, and the White House restated the no-cuts commitment in March 2025. PolitiFact still classifies the promise 'In the Works,' not 'Broken.' NOT-KEPT SIDE: the 2025 tax-and-spending law ended Medicare eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants (refugees, asylees, TPS holders) -- which KFF's Tricia Neuman describes as the first time in Medicare's history that coverage was terminated for a specific population group -- and FactCheck.org documents that the same law's deficit increase would trigger statutory-PAYGO Medicare sequestration (CBO: $536B over nine years) absent congressional action. PolitiFact also documents DOGE-driven SSA workforce and facility reductions that created, per the sources it quotes, 'unnecessary obstacles for seniors trying to access their earned benefits.' ADVERSARIAL CHECKS: (1) Not FULL -- the promise says 'NO CUTS,' and a documented, first-ever termination of Medicare eligibility for a covered population is a real cut, so 100%-kept is not defensible. (2) Not CHAMPIONED -- there is no evidence of an affirmative Trump-led legislative effort to shore up Social Security or Medicare; restating a commitment is not leading one, and the only major enacted law in scope moved against the promise on eligibility. (3) Not MISALIGNED/HOSTILE -- benefit levels and the retirement age, the promise's explicitly named terms, are intact per two independent fact-checkers; treating a narrow eligibility restriction as wholesale hostility would overstate the record. (4) Symmetry test: a politician of either party with this record -- named terms honored, one real carve-out to eligibility, plus service degradation -- would be rated 'kept some but not all.' PARTIAL is the correct label under a party-neutral standard. One correction to the prior rationale: the retirement-age and PAYGO points were partly misattributed to PolitiFact; PAYGO comes from FactCheck.org, and the retirement age is covered by PolitiFact only via its broader finding that benefit rules are unchanged. This does not change the outcome. I also checked and DISCARDED an unverifiable CRFB trust-fund-depletion URL (HTTP 404) rather than cite it.