The promise is well-verified: PolitiFact confirms Ernst said 'Let's shut down the EPA' at an April 24, 2014 primary debate and rated the abolition claim True (The Hill and Legal Planet corroborate). The prior rating of MISALIGNED (-0.75) is too harsh under a party-blind standard. Its strongest cited evidence cuts the wrong way: confirming Scott Pruitt (2017) and Andrew Wheeler (2019) meant confirming deregulatory, EPA-shrinking administrators, which is consistent with an anti-EPA stance, not a measure against it. Her broader EPA legislative record is deregulatory (the Define WOTUS Act, opposing EPA rules) — directionally consistent with the campaign sentiment, not opposed to it. The only genuine pro-functioning-EPA thread is her defense of the Renewable Fuel Standard, but that is parochial protection of Iowa biofuel (a mandate the EPA happens to administer), not a defense of the agency's existence or mission, and does not brand her whole record as actively working to keep the EPA alive. The defining fact is that across her Senate tenure (2015-present) she never introduced or cosponsored any legislation to abolish, terminate, or defund the EPA out of existence, despite ample opportunity (such bills exist and attract sponsors). The dramatic campaign pledge to 'shut down the EPA' was simply never pursued as a legislative goal — she had the opportunity and never engaged the literal promise, which is the definition of IGNORED. Confidence is moderate because the key fact is a negative (absence of any abolition bill) and genuine ambiguity remains between IGNORED and MISALIGNED given the RFS thread, but IGNORED is the better-supported, less partisan label.