Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptTaxes

Committed to extending and making permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), and voted for the reconciliation legislation that extended them.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 97%

Independently re-verified. The promise had two components: (1) a commitment to extend/make permanent the 2017 TCJA tax cuts, and (2) voting for the reconciliation legislation that did so. I fetched the House Clerk roll-call XML directly (curl, HTTP 200) and confirmed both are real and support the outcome: Roll Call 145 (H.R. 1, On Passage, 22-May-2025, Passed) records Walberg (party=R, state=MI) as 'Yea'; Roll Call 190 (H.R. 1, Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment, 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', 3-Jul-2025, Passed) records Walberg (R-MI) as 'Aye'. Congress.gov confirms H.R. 1 'Became Public Law No: 119-21' after being 'Signed by President' on 07/04/2025. The enacted OBBBA extended and made permanent the TCJA individual income tax rates/brackets that were set to expire end of 2025. Both the promised vote and the resulting enactment occurred, so the promise was kept in full. Nonpartisan cross-check: a member of either party who voted Yea/Aye at both stages on legislation that became law would earn FULL under the same standard; FULL (not CHAMPIONED) is correct because the promise's metric is the vote for the legislation, which succeeded, rather than a sponsorship/leadership claim.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →