“Committed to passing his EL CHAPO Act, which would direct assets criminally forfeited from convicted drug lords toward funding border security and construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.”
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.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
The ATTEMPTED rating is upheld. The outcome — Cruz genuinely championed his EL CHAPO Act but it never passed, dying in committee — is directly supported by verified sources. (1) The Cruz Senate press release (Jan 3, 2019) was fetched and confirms the title "Sen. Cruz Reintroduces EL CHAPO Act" and that the bill "would reserve any amounts forfeited to the U.S. Government as a result of the criminal prosecution of 'El Chapo'...for border security assets and the completion of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border," verifying both the sponsorship/effort and the promise's substance. (2) Wikipedia was fetched and the cited quote appears verbatim: "Neither the House nor the Senate version of the legislation received committee or floor votes, and the legislation died at the end of the 115th Congress," establishing failure. (3) The congress.gov S.25 (116th Congress) all-info page returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch (congress.gov and GovTrack both bot-block automated fetches), so the cited primary source could not be fetched directly; however, an independent web search surfaced that same congress.gov S.25 page and corroborated the cited status — introduced by Cruz, "read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary," and it "did not receive a vote." The quote is therefore genuine, not fabricated. Taken together the sources document a real, repeated sponsor-led effort that failed within the normal legislative process (referred to committee, no markup/committee vote/floor vote, never enacted). That is ATTEMPTED, not FULL/CHAMPIONED (never passed) and not IGNORED (he actively promoted it). Confidence is set at 0.82, marginally below the original, to reflect that one of the three cited sources (the primary congress.gov page) could not be reached via WebFetch and was instead verified through independent corroboration; the underlying facts remain firmly established.
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.