“Vowed to continue his blanket hold on senior military promotions and Department of Defense nominees until the Pentagon reversed its policy of reimbursing travel for service members seeking abortions.”
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.
Both cited sources are reachable and directly document the outcome for THIS promise. The promise (2023-03-23) was to CONTINUE the blanket hold on senior military promotions/DoD nominees "until the Pentagon reversed" its abortion-travel-reimbursement policy. The sources confirm partial performance: Tuberville sustained the hold at scale for roughly 10 months (blocking 400+ promotions), then on 2023-12-05 lifted holds on about 440 officers (Roll Call: "lifted his holds on approximately 440 senior military officer promotions" while keeping 11 four-star holds), and the Pentagon NEVER reversed the policy. He therefore substantially executed the promised action but abandoned it short of the stated condition, which was never met. This is more than ATTEMPTED (the hold was actually carried out at scale for most of a year, not merely tried) and less than FULL (he stopped before the Pentagon reversal that was the promise's defining endpoint). It is not MISALIGNED/HOSTILE — he pursued his stated aim, then conceded. PARTIAL is well-supported and does not overstate the evidence. Both quotes verified verbatim: the Roll Call quote appears as reported speech from Tuberville; the Defense One quote appears verbatim, attributed to President Biden (the rating cited it without misattribution). Neither source shows the Pentagon reversing its policy, consistent with the rating.
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.