Adversarial re-check confirms the prior rating. All four cited sources were independently re-fetched and are real, live, and quoted accurately. Senate Roll Call Vote 119-1-372 (July 1, 2025) on passage of H.R. 1 fetched live: the bill passed 50-50 with the Vice President breaking the tie, and Kennedy (R-LA) is recorded Yea. Public Law 119-21 on govinfo confirms enactment July 4, 2025. Senate Roll Call Vote 119-1-411 fetched live: H.R. 4 rescissions passed 51-48, Kennedy Yea. The Tax Foundation page carries the quoted line verbatim ('the OBBBA will increase federal budget deficits by $3.3 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a dynamic basis') and adds that conventional deficits rise $5.2 trillion including interest and debt-to-GDP rises 12 points by 2034. I added an independent corroborating source the prior researcher did not use: the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which finds the law 'will increase borrowing by $4.1 trillion through 2034 on a conventional basis.' CBO's own estimate is likewise a multi-trillion-dollar deficit increase, and the law raises the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion - a figure that is baseline-independent and cannot be argued away by scoring conventions. Against a promise to 'continue opposing policies that would ... add to the national debt,' the single most consequential fiscal vote Kennedy cast in this period was FOR the law that added the most to the debt. That is the definition of MISALIGNED: he took a measure against the promise's direction. Symmetry test applied: a Democrat who pledged to oppose debt-increasing policy and then voted for a $4 trillion-borrowing bill carrying a $5 trillion debt-limit increase would receive the identical label on this evidence, so the rating is not partisan. Rungs above and below were tested and rejected: PARTIAL is wrong because his one genuine deficit-reducing action (the ~$9 billion H.R. 4 rescission, roughly two-tenths of one percent of the debt the reconciliation law added) does not amount to keeping 'some' of an anti-debt commitment; IGNORED is wrong because he engaged heavily rather than sat out; HOSTILE (-1.0) is too harsh because he was a supporting vote, not the author or floor leader of the bill. Confidence is held at 0.7 rather than raised: the promise text is undated and open-ended ('continue opposing'), which weakens any clean before/after test, and Senate Republicans scored the tax title against a current-policy baseline under which it reads as deficit-reducing - a real, non-frivolous dispute, even though it cannot reach the debt-ceiling increase. That residual uncertainty is a reason for restraint on confidence, not for softening the outcome.