“Committed to continue working to reduce federal spending and to pursue reforms of the federal budget process.”
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.
All three cited sources are reachable and support the CHAMPIONED outcome for this ongoing-effort promise ("continue working to reduce federal spending and to pursue reforms of the federal budget process"). Budget-process reform: verified that Lankford is a lead/primary Senate co-sponsor of the bipartisan Prevent Government Shutdowns Act (with Sen. Hassan), a structural appropriations-process reform (rolling automatic CRs, keeping Congress in session, travel bans during a lapse); he forced it to a Senate floor vote as an amendment to a FY2024 spending package on Oct 27, 2023 (failed 56-42, short of 60), and reintroduced it Sept 4, 2025, tying it to the $37T debt. Reducing federal spending: verified he released Federal Fumbles Volume 7 on May 18, 2023, cataloguing wasteful spending with recommended cuts and framing it as bringing down the national debt. Because he led/drove these efforts (lead sponsorship, forcing a floor vote, reintroduction, authoring the waste report) rather than merely voting, CHAMPIONED fits, and the shutdown bill's failure to pass does not lower a "pursue/continue working" promise. The two PRIMARY-source quotes are confirmed verbatim; the one secondary-source (GovExec) "quote" is a fact-accurate paraphrase presented with ellipses rather than verbatim article text, but every fact it asserts (co-sponsorship, FY2024 amendment, 56-42 on Oct 27 2023, 60-vote threshold) is corroborated by the article, so the outcome does not overstate the evidence.
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.