“Advance the FORTIFY U.S. Research Act (with Sen. Marco Rubio) to end China's access to American taxpayer-funded research.”
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 PRIMARY sources are reachable and their quotes match verbatim. The Congress.gov introduced text for S.4722 confirms verbatim: "Mr. Rubio (for himself, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Ricketts, and Mr. Budd) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary," and confirms the bill is the FORTIFY (Furthering Operations for Resiliency, Transparency, and Integrity to Fortify) U.S. Research Act. This establishes that Ricketts was a fourth-listed cosponsor and Rubio the lead sponsor, so CHAMPIONED (which requires demonstrated leadership: sponsored/authored/led) is correctly NOT warranted; Ricketts only lent his name. The Ricketts press release headline matches verbatim: "Ricketts, Rubio Introduce Bill to End China's Access to American Taxpayer-Funded Research," dated July 11, 2024. ATTEMPTED is properly supported: Ricketts genuinely acted by co-introducing/cosponsoring, but the promise to ADVANCE the bill was unfulfilled — the only recorded action was referral to committee, with no hearing, markup, report, or floor vote before the 118th Congress ended. An independent search for a 119th-Congress reintroduction found only unrelated research-security bills (United States Research Protection Act, RESEARCHER Act, etc.), corroborating that the FORTIFY vehicle died in committee and was not revived (Rubio having resigned to become Secretary of State). The sources support exactly the claimed outcome without overstatement.
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.