12 misleading or lacking-in-context claims from Harris’ DNC speech : NPR

There were about a dozen statements that Vice President Kamala Harris made during her roughly 40-minute acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that were either misleading or lacking in context.

They range from characterizations of former President Trump’s stances on abortion rights and Social Security to her plans to address housing and grocery prices.

It’s the role of the press to try and hold politicians to account for the accuracy of their statements in a good-faith way. The dozen Harris statements lacking in context are far less in comparison to 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies that NPR found from Trump’s hour-long news conference Aug. 8.

Nonetheless, here’s what we found from Harris’ convention speech:

1. “His explicit intent to jail journalists, political opponents, and anyone he sees as the enemy.” 

Trump has promised retribution against his political enemies, has called reporters “the enemy of the people,” and has made vague threats of jail time for reporters.

“They’ll never find out, & it’s important that they do,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform after the leak of a draft of the Dobbs decision was published. “So, go to the reporter & ask him/her who it was. If not given the answer, put whoever in jail until the answer is given. You might add the editor and publisher to the list.”

He’s made other such comments, but there’s no explicit and specific policy from Trump on this because, as with many things involving Trump, he has been vague about his specific intentions.

2. “[W]e know and we know what a second Trump term would look like. It’s all laid out in Project 2025, written by his closest advisers. And its sum total is to pull our country back to the past.” 

Project 2025 is the work of people with close ties to Trump through the Heritage Foundation. Trump has disavowed parts of Project 2025, and a campaign official called it a “pain in the ass.” There’s good political reason for that. Many of the detailed proposals are highly controversial and unpopular. The website for Project 2025 lays out some of the connections to the Trump administration in black and white, as well as the group’s belief that a Trump administration will use it as a blueprint:“The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is being organized by the Heritage Foundation and builds off Heritage’s longstanding ‘Mandate for Leadership,’ which has been highly influential for presidential administrations since the Reagan era. Most recently, the Trump administration relied heavily on Heritage’s “Mandate” for policy guidance, embracing nearly two-thirds of Heritage’s proposals within just one year in office.

“Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.”

In fact, CNN reported that “at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025,” including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and adviser Stephen Miller.

What’s more, CBS News found at least 270 policy proposals that intersect with the about 700 laid out in Project 2025.

3. “We’re not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare.” 

Former President Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security, the popular retirement program. While he was in office, Trump did try, unsuccessfully, to cut benefits for people who receive disability payments from Social Security.

Social Security benefits could be cut within a decade anyway, unless Congress takes steps to shore up the program. With tens of millions of baby boomers retiring and starting to draw benefits, and fewer people in the workforce paying taxes for each retiree, Social Security is expected to run short of cash in 2033. If that happens, almost 60 million retirees and their families would automatically see their benefits cut by 21%.

The problem could be solved by raising taxes, reducing benefits or some combination of the two. – Scott Horsley, NPR chief economics correspondent

4. “We are not going to let him end programs like Head Start that provide preschool and childcare for our children in America.”

This is again tied to Project 2025, but not something Trump has specifically talked about. Trump has talked about shutting down the Department of Education, but Head Start is funded through the Department of Health and Human Services.

5. “[A]s president, I will bring together labor and workers and small-business owners and entrepreneurs and American companies to create jobs to grow our economy and to lower the cost of everyday needs like healthcare and housing and groceries.”

High supermarket prices are a common complaint. Although grocery prices have largely leveled off, rising just 1.1% in the 12 months ending in July, they jumped 3.6% the previous year and a whopping 13.1% the year before that. Vice President Harris has proposed combating high grocery prices with a federal ban on “price gouging,” but her campaign has offered no specifics on how that would work or what would constitute excessive prices. The Biden-Harris administration has previously blamed some highly concentrated parts of the food chain – such as meat-packers – for driving up prices. The administration has tried to promote more competition in the industry by bankrolling new players. – Scott Horsley

6. “And we will end America’s housing shortage.”

The U.S. faces a serious shortage of housing, which has led to high costs. The average home sold last month for $422,600. Last week, Harris proposed several steps to encourage construction of additional housing, including tax breaks intended to promote 3 million new units in four years. (For context, the U.S. is currently building about 1.5 million homes per year, including just over a million single family homes.) Harris has also proposed $25,000 in downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers and a $40 billion fund to help communities develop affordable housing. She has not said where the money for these programs would come from. – Scott Horsley

7. “He doesn’t actually fight for the middle class. Instead, he fights for himself and his billionaire friends. And he will give them another round of tax breaks that will add up to $5 trillion to the national debt.”

While the 2017 tax cuts were skewed to the wealthy, it did cut taxes across the board.

Large parts of that tax cut are due to expire next year. Trump has proposed extending all of them, and while also calling for additional, unspecified tax cuts. Harris has proposed extending the tax cuts for everyone making less than $400,000 a year (97% of the population) while raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the IRS has also beefed up tax enforcement to ensure that wealthier people and businesses pay what they owe. GOP lawmakers have criticized that effort, and it would likely be reversed in a second Trump administration. Both Harris and Trump have proposed exempting tips from taxation. While popular with workers in the swing state of Nevada, where many people work in tip-heavy industries like casinos, the idea has serious problems. Unless the lost tax revenue were replaced somehow, it would create an even bigger budget deficit. It would treat one class of workers (tipped employees) differently from all other workers. And it would invite gamesmanship as other workers tried to have part of their own income reclassified as tax-free tips. Depending on how the exemptions were structured, it could also result in lower retirement benefits for tipped workers. – Scott Horsley

8. “And all the while he intends to enact what, in effect, is a national sales tax? Call it a Trump tax that would raise prices on middle class families by almost $4,000 a year.”

This appears to be a reference to tariffs. Donald Trump raised tariffs sharply while he was in office, and he’s pledged to go further if he returns to the White House. During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, washing machines, solar panels and numerous products from China. Many trading partners retaliated, slapping tariffs of their own on U.S. exports. Farmers and manufacturers suffered.

Despite the fallout, the Biden/Harris administration has left most of the Trump tariffs in place, while adding its own, additional levies on targeted goods from China such as electric vehicles. In a second term, Trump has proposed adding a 10% tariff on all imports, with a much higher levy on all Chinese goods. Researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate such import taxes would cost the average family $1,700 a year. – Scott Horsley

9. “This is what’s happening in our country because of Donald Trump. And understand he is not done as a part of his agenda. He and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion, and enact a nationwide abortion ban with or without Congress. And get this, get this – he plans to create a national anti-abortion coordinator and force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions.”

It is accurate to point out that the lack of abortion access across the country for millions of women particularly in the South is directly because of Trump and his decision to appoint three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who voted to overturn Roe. As president, he sided with employers, who for religious or moral reasons, didn’t want to pay for contraception, as he tried to change the mandate that contraception be paid for under the Affordable Care Act.

But it’s unclear what Trump will do again as president. He has made conflicting comments about access to contraception. Harris’s charges about an “agenda” again seem to be based on the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It would be accurate to warn that it’s possible, if not likely, Trump would take up the recommendations given that people close to Trump were instrumental in writing it and given that in his first term as president, he adopted many of the Heritage Foundation’s recommendations. But it’s not entirely accurate to say “he plans to create” these things when Trump himself and his campaign have not advocated for this. Trump himself has said that abortion should be left up to the states – and insisted that he doesn’t support a national ban.

10. “With this election, we finally have the opportunity to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.”

This is another one of those traps politicians fall into – overpromising when it’s not something they can control. Harris needs Congress to do this, and her winning the presidency does not guarantee that any of what she wants done legislatively will get done, even if Democrats take control of both chambers.

11. “Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades.”

While Donald Trump stood in the way of this bill passing, and it had been written by with conservative Republicans, it’s not accurate to say this was the “strongest border bill in decades” unless you count 11 years as decades. The 2013 comprehensive immigration overhaul that got 68 votes in the Senate and was killed by the GOP House, did far more than this bill did.

12. “He encouraged Putin to invade our allies, said Russia could quote, do whatever the hell they want.”

While an alarming thing for an American president to say about a NATO ally, this is lacking in some context. Trump said he would say Russia could “do whatever the hell it wanted” – and Trump would not defend an ally – if that country didn’t “pay.” Trump continues to get wrong, however, that no countries in the alliance “pay” anything to anyone except themselves. What Trump is talking about is NATO countries’ goals of funding their own defense to 2% of their gross domestic product. But not defending a country from a hostile invasion would violate Article 5 of the 1949 treaty that binds the countries in battle and was created as a way to thwart any potential efforts by the former Soviet Union to expand beyond its borders.

It reads: “[I]f a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.”

It has been invoked once: After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.