Examining Past False Claims as Trump and Harris Prepare to Debate

In a much-anticipated encounter, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are set to meet face-to-face in their first debate on Tuesday night. Their contrasting visions for the country create a backdrop for what promises to be a revealing showdown. Trump often emphasizes a bleak perspective that highlights issues such as immigration and persistent inflation. In contrast, Harris promotes a message of hope, adamantly declaring that “we’re not going back.”

The first debate of the 2024 election, which took place in June, was marked by multiple misleading assertions from both candidates, as President Joe Biden’s subpar performance led him to exit the race. Observers anticipate that the upcoming debate will feature similar claims from Trump and Harris.

Abortion is a pivotal issue this election cycle, given the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade more than two years ago. This decision resulted in sweeping restrictions on abortion in numerous states, with 14 states imposing total bans and three states prohibiting the procedure after just six weeks, often before many women are even aware they are pregnant.

Trump frequently attempts to frame Democrats as extreme on abortion, alleging that some states allow for post-birth abortions, a claim that is unequivocally false. Infanticide remains criminalized in every state, and no legislation permits the killing of infants after birth.

Harris has argued that Trump aims to implement a nationwide abortion ban, whether or not Congress is involved. Conversely, Trump maintains that there will not be a federal ban, as abortion policy has reverted to state control. However, he has suggested in the past that he would support a national ban around 15 weeks into pregnancy.

In regard to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, Trump has repeatedly tried to connect Harris to the chaotic exit, which allowed the Taliban to regain power before the final American troops could depart in August 2021. Evaluations suggest that both Trump and Biden bear responsibility for the withdrawal’s catastrophic outcome, primarily due to Trump’s 2020 agreement with the Taliban, which laid the groundwork for the withdrawal.

Biden’s decision to continue with this withdrawal was noted as a significant factor in the ensuing chaos. Harris has stated she was involved in the discussions leading up to this decision, yet her influence on the critical frameworks of this strategy has not been substantiated by oversight bodies or comprehensive investigations.

As the election approaches, economic concerns have also surfaced. Both candidates are attempting to position themselves as the better option regarding economic recovery and management. Democrats argue that Trump’s proposed import tariffs could significantly increase costs for American families, while Trump insists that tariff revenues would be used to reduce overall tax burdens.

Harris has proposed substantial assistance for first-time homebuyers, aiming to aid them with down payments and provide incentives for building affordable homes. However, experts caution that such measures could exacerbate housing demand amid an already critical supply shortage.

While Trump often reminisces about a booming economy during his term, it is important to consider that his presidency also witnessed a recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. In examining economic growth, periods of significant decline must be acknowledged. Furthermore, inflation, which peaked in mid-2022, is starting to trend downward, with recent reports suggesting a return to lower levels not seen in years.

On energy, Trump has made promises to boost oil production as part of his anti-inflation strategy, yet surprisingly, U.S. oil production reached a peak during Biden’s presidency. Prices at the pump are also beginning to ease, moving away from the record highs of the previous summer.

Trump has expressed concerns about regulatory measures impacting coal-fired power plants, claiming they face imminent closures due to new EPA rules. However, these assertions misrepresent the reality; many plants are shutting down not due to strict regulations but due to economic pressures from renewable energy sources.

Harris has faced scrutiny for her evolving stance on fracking. Initially opposing the practice during her 2020 campaign, she later clarified that she would not support a ban, indicating a shift aimed at aligning with wider party perspectives on energy production.

Violent crime trends will also be a focal point of the debate, as Democrats highlight crime rates during Trump’s term amid his persistent law-and-order rhetoric. Data shows that while violent crime rates declined during most of Trump’s presidency, 2020 marked a significant spike due to the pandemic. The crime rate has gradually decreased since then, approaching pre-pandemic levels.

As Trump prepares to critique Harris’ administration on border security, he has laid out exaggerated figures on illegal immigration, which lack substantial verification. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported millions of arrests for illegal crossings, though these figures do not necessarily correlate to the number of individuals attempting entry.

Allegations that illegal immigration directly leads to increased crime rates have not found credible backing. Despite anecdotal incidents in media, statistical data does not support a widespread correlation between immigration status and crime levels.