“Introduced the Protecting Higher Education from the Chinese Communist Party Act to ban CCP members and their relatives from receiving U.S. student visas.”
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 specific promise. The promise was to introduce the "Protecting Higher Education from the Chinese Communist Party Act" to bar CCP members and their relatives from U.S. student visas. (1) Schmitt's official Senate press release, dated 2024-09-26 (the promise date), confirms he introduced the bill and that it "bans members of the Chinese Communist Party and their relatives from receiving student visas to American universities"; the cited quote about the CCP being "our most significant adversary" appears verbatim, and Schmitt is identified as the introducing/lead sponsor. (2) GovInfo confirms he re-introduced the effort as S.108 in the 119th Congress on 2025-01-16 as sponsor, making CCP members and their family members ineligible for F or J visas, referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. (3) The Heartlander's headline matches the cited text exactly and corroborates the bill filing on 2024-09-26. The sources show real leadership — Schmitt is the author and lead sponsor who introduced and re-introduced the bill and publicly championed it, not a mere vote or supporter. The bill remains in committee (not enacted), but the promise was limited to introducing it, which he fully did and led. CHAMPIONED is warranted. Minor note: the GovInfo "quote" in the original rating is a paraphrase of the bill's purpose/metadata rather than verbatim text, so I recorded the source's verbatim purpose language instead; this does not affect the outcome.
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.