“Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked this three times. Even I couldn’t believe it. What’s the score? Democrats 50, Republicans one."

Since his comments, that statement has been fact checked by many sources and confirmed to be accurate. 

What's remarkable - but not entirely surprising - is that this trend of Democratic Presidents being far better when it comes to economic growth and gains for the public at large is a recurrent theme in the history of the United States, in some cases going back almost a century or more. Indeed, in his analysis on this topic in 2021 (Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?), David Leonhardt observed:

It’s true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.”

To delve a bit deeper on this topic, I created a slide deck compiling the most comprehensive collection of supporting data/charts from a variety of sources, such academic research/papers, media, and financial analysts. All of this data provides a rather substantial body of evidence that Democratic Presidents are associated with far better economic growth across a variety of metrics compared to Republican presidents, and there is evidence this is not due to coincidence. Here is the link to the slide deck:

Democratic vs. Republican Presidents and the US Economy

I also have a section delving into some of the economic data from the Trump/Pence and Biden/Harris administrations.

Image courtesy of geralt

• Gov. Walz has been truthful about his service and rank.

• He did not retire because he was asked to report for duty and go to Iraq. Rather, he decided to retire many months prior and filed to run for Congress well before his official retirement date, which in turn significantly pre-dated his unit being notified of a deployment to Iraq (that happened the following year).

• Gov. Walz had not claimed that he did combat duty in Afghanistan - and he had even specifically pointed out that he had not done combat duty. He truthfully said that he was deployed in Europe to support the war effort associated with Operating Enduring Freedom, as many others stationed outside Afghanistan have also pointed out.

The increasingly desperate and flailing Trump campaign, their surrogates and prominent social media supporters are trying hard to keep this story in the news, in the hope that media outlets other than Fox fall for their gambit to smear Walz, and by extension Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Here are two more recent examples that have been debunked this weekend.

The first false claim is that a person named John Kolb was Walz’s battalion commander and that Kolb has written a scathing attack on Walz’s leadership. In fact, Brandon Friedman points out that Kolb was not Walz’s Battalion Commander when Walz was in the National Guard.

As you can see, Kolb didn't take over Walz's battalion until six months after Walz had filed to run for Congress and nearly three months after he'd retired and left. Here's the link with dates of command: https://ngmnpublic.azurewebsites.us/minnesota-national-guard-staff-lineages/

It's important to get the word out on this because Trumpers are going nuts over it. And it's completely false. Walz retired months before Kolb took over the battalion. This is a fact-free political smear campaign.

Further, in a different story in the New York Times, many fellow soldiers who were asked about Walz had positive things to say about him, including one of his Battalion Commanders:

Mr. Walz, now Minnesota governor and the presumptive Democratic candidate for vice president, raised his hand to join the Army National Guard just two days past his 17th birthday on April 8, 1981. In a career in the military that spanned three decades, he battled floods, managed an artillery unit and achieved one of the highest enlisted ranks in the Army. He also navigated a full-time job teaching social studies alongside his part-time military occupation as an enlisted combat arms soldier, a role that trained him for war.

[…]

Supporters say he served honorably for 24 years and had long since earned the right to retire from the Guard when he chose.

“In talking with him, it was a hard decision,” said Joseph Eustice, a soldier who served under Mr. Walz until his departure. “The guy I knew in the Guard, I’d walk through a wall for.”

[…]

Even his most vocal opponents in the Guard agree that Mr. Walz was a respected soldier — someone who did his job dependably and could be counted on to take care of his troops.

[…]

“He was a good soldier,” said Bill Kautt who was Mr. Walz’s battalion commander during the short deployment to Norway. “I think he was a respected member of the Guard and he did his job.”

Mr. Walz was the chief of one of the unit’s howitzer batteries and joined the exercise as the battalion’s operations sergeant in the command group and worked closely with Mr. Kautt.

[…]

“I was very impressed with him,” Mr. Kautt said. “I would consider him energetic. He was dependable and he was willing to do whatever we asked him to do.”

But his time in an artillery unit came at a cost to his health, despite not seeing combat. The deafening booms and shock waves from howitzer barrels and their projectiles, which sound like freight trains as they fly overhead, left Mr. Walz with hearing loss and tinnitus in both ears, according to a 2018 report from Minnesota Public Radio. In 2005 he underwent corrective surgery to alleviate the problem, the report said.

[…]

In the twilight of his time in the Guard, before he retired in 2005 to run for Congress, Mr. Walz deployed to Vincenza, Italy in 2003. His artillery battalion was charged with guarding entry control points at Air Force bases that were supporting the war in Afghanistan as U.S. forces sought to capture or kill Al Qaeda’s leadership there.

The second false claim relates to another video of then Rep. Walz that was posted on social media with the claim that he lied in the video by claiming to have been deployed in Afghanistan. Multiple people have pointed out that this claim is a flagrant lie - for example, here’s James Surowiecki:

Yet another example of the strange [right wing] habit of making a false claim while linking to a clip that shows their claim is false.

Nowhere in this clip does Walz tell the gold-star family that he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Further, former Trump campaign advisor A. J. Delgado, commented on another video doing the rounds:

LOL. This is so dumb. He says he carried weapons "in war." He DID. He served in Europe, after we had gone to war with Afghanistan, preparing and training security forces there. Now, if he'd said he carried weapons in "active combat" then, yes, that would probably be misleading.

In this context, it’s worth recalling what Roger Misso said in his Twitter thread:

I supported Operation Enduring Freedom.

I never set foot in Afghanistan.

How?

I flew off of an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean supporting troops on the ground.

Much like Tim Walz supported OEF in Italy and Turkey through base security to support troops on the ground.

The inability for some folks to understand what OEF is - and that tens of thousands of servicemembers supported it from outside of Afghanistan - is a commentary on how little the American public supported or understood our presence there.

That’s not on Gov Walz - that’s on you.

What’s more, there would be no OEF without Gov Walz, me, and the thousands of servicemembers who supported the effort from ships and bases all over the CENTCOM, INDOPACOM, and EUCOM AORs.

To suggest otherwise is wrong and troublingly ignorant about military readiness.

Amen.

Today, let’s touch upon two other recent fabrications from Trump-land about Gov. Walz.

Did Gov. Walz pass a law mandating supply of menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms in schools? The answer is no.

Here are some excerpts from an Editorial by The Star Tribune in Minnesota:

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris tapped Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. By Wednesday, the opposition had mobilized with lightning speed for its one of its first political attacks, dubbing Walz “Tampon Tim” in reference to a new state law providing free menstrual products to school students.

The nickname was trending nationally this week on Twitter, an indicator of its political currency. Chaya Raichik, whose scurrilous “Libs of TikTok” account on X (formerly Twitter) has more than 3 million followers, was one of the first to amplify it. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly added to the momentum, endorsing the nickname via tweet.

And what is the actual fake brouhaha all about? This false claim:

A specific but ill-informed attack on the new Minnesota law is in dire need of a reality check. Critics contend, wrongly, that it mandates menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms. This has unfortunately been used to stoke ongoing culture wars over transgender individuals.

As the Tribune points out:

But the law’s actual language provides considerable flexibility for school districts to implement it, according to Deb Henton, the executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.

That might mean making these products available for free in various locations for all who need them, such as unisex bathrooms, girls’ bathrooms, the school nurse or the front office, but not necessarily in boys’ bathrooms. […]

At Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest school district, the free products are not found in traditional male-only bathrooms, a spokesman said. But they are provided for free to all in “nongendered bathrooms,” girls’ bathrooms or from health staffers.

What is particularly egregious about the lie being spread on this law is that it hides the fact that numerous states - including Republican-run states - have very similar policies, because it helps reduce female student absenteeism.

This is good and necessary policy. Providing free menstrual products is a practical, compassionate remedy to address an under-the-radar reason for student absenteeism. Some families can’t afford menstrual products, and when that happens students stay home instead of going to class, falling behind as they do.

There’s a lot of talk about closing educational achievement gaps in Minnesota and elsewhere, particularly for low-income students. The new state law, which has a price tag of about $2 million a year, is an actual solution to help address this, one that’s relatively low-cost. And there’s real-world data to back it up. New York City schools reported a 2.4% increase in attendance after a state law went into effect requiring free period products for students, according to the advocacy group Alliance for Period Supplies.

Minnesota is far from alone in providing this type of assistance. More than half of the nation’s 50 states have taken steps to help students who struggle to afford tampons and pads. Ohio, led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, now requires period products in schools and has provided $5 million in funding for this, the Alliance for Period Supplies reports. Alabama and Georgia provide grants for schools to make free products available.

Did Gov. Walz pass a law allowing MN state to “kidnap” children whose parents did not consent to “gender-affirming” care? The answer is no.

UNC law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick flagged this yesterday, sharing screenshots of the abominable claims from far-right sources:

In case you were wondering, Tim Walz did not sign a law letting the state (or anyone else) kidnap children to give them gender affirming care. The law he signed can affect child custody disputes occurring in other states, but these repeated claims about kidnapping are crazy. […]

The bill [link] itself is pretty long, but basically what it does is create new law to make sure that parents don't lose custody of their kids just because they let them have gender-affirming care.

Here is the text of the relevant law and you can see that it has nothing to do with kidnapping or forcing parents to accept “gender affirming” care for a child. It’s in some ways the opposite - namely, if a parent allowed “gender-affirming care” and another state tried to prevent that parent from having custody of their child, the state of MN would not support such an action:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. [260.925] APPLICATION OF LAWS; GENDER-AFFIRMING HEALTH

CARE.

A law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child's parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health care, as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b), is against the public policy of this state and must not be enforced or applied in a case pending in a court in this state. A court order for the removal of a child issued in another state because the child's parent or guardian assisted the child in receiving gender-affirming care in this state must not be enforced in this state.

Voters should therefore be very cautious about any claims emanating from the Republican party in this election cycle, given that the Party’s leader Donald Trump and his foot soldiers in the far-Right media ecosystem are pathological liars.

Finally, a quick note on a third topic involving Gov. Walz.

Trump and his campaign have attacked Gov. Walz for his response to the riots in 2020 after the horrific murder of George Floyd, which had triggered protests worldwide. However, some media outlets have a recording of Trump praising Gov. Wald for his response to the riots - for example, here’s CBS (70 sec mark):

Another clip worth watching is this one from VP Harris’ campaign.

Reporter: Despite Trump’s new criticism, an unearthed audio recording from 2020 shows then-President Trump praising Governor Tim Walz for his handling of George Floyd protests

LaCivita was a media advisor for the Swift Boat Veterans, an independent-expenditure group credited with a significant impact on the 2004 presidential election by lying about John Kerry's military record.

Here’s Matthew Dowd on what that was all about:

[Yes] it was disproven. I was chief strategist for Bush-Cheney 2004 and this Swift Boat attack was nearly all lies.

[As an aside, Jane Mayer highlighted that a key funder of the frauds who lied about Sen. John Kerry was none other than Harlan Crow, the billionaire benefactor of the extraordinarily corrupt Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas].

That past history is relevant today because Trump Republicans, and especially J. D. Vance, have started a similar campaign of lies about the National Guard service record of Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to try and character assassinate him and, by extension, inflict damage upon the candidacy of Democratic Presidential nominee and current Vice President Kamala Harris. This will inevitably lead to a lot of false or inaccurate stories about Walz in the mainstream media, for this very simple reason articulated by Patrick Watson:

Giant media failure to let political journalists who know nothing about the military report on Tim Walz's NG career.

So, let’s take a few minutes to document some key facts.

Did Walz misstate his rank in the National Guard? The answer is NO. He was truthful.

This is much ado about nothing, a technicality that has nothing to do with the rank he served in at the time he retired and everything to do with what happened after his retirement.

Matt White and Patty Nieberg at Task and Purpose:

He served as the 125th’s command sergeant major, an E-9, the Army’s highest enlisted rank. However, according to the Minnesota Guard, his retirement status and benefits were reduced [after his retirement] to that of an E-8 because he did not complete the training required of all E-9s.

[..] The course Walz failed to complete was a 750-hour course in the Army’s Sergeants Major Academy, which would have included 86 hours in residence at Ft. Bliss, Texas. Completing the course is mandatory for E-9s, though completing the training after being promoted is not uncommon. But without the training, Walz was not eligible to retire as a full E-9 and his retired status and benefits were ‘reduced’ to E-8 after he left service.

The Minnesota Guard confirmed to Task & Purpose that Walz was properly promoted and served in the E-9 role, and “retired as” an E-9, despite the later reduction.

Did Walz decide to retire because he was asked to report for duty and go to Iraq? The answer is NO. He decided to retire months prior and filed to run for Congress.

In short, Walz likely decided to retire in late 2004 and then formally filed to run for Congress 5 months before his [former] unit was called to deploy to Iraq. So, when he made a decision to retire, there was no way he could have even known that his unit would be called on to deploy. Once he decided to retire and run for Congress, it was completely understandable that he continued down that path, since he had more than fulfilled the minimum number of years of service with the National Guard (NG) to qualify for retirement.

Here is the timeline based on what we know today (see supporting links below):

• Likely ~Nov 2004: Walz notifies the National Guard about his plan to retire

• Between Nov 2004 and Feb 2005: Walz decides to run for Congress

• Feb 2005: Walz files with the FEC to run for Congress

• May 2005: Walz formally retires from the NG

• Jul 2005: NG announces deployment of his former unit to Iraq

A. J. Delgado:

This person is correct. I just checked the FEC file and Walz FILED [link] to run for Congress on Feb 10 2005 (which means he'd likely decided in late 2004).

His unit wasn't told re: Iraq until JULY 2005.

Southpaw:

You can also look up Walz’s 2005 FEC filings [link] and see he was already running for Congress in the early months of the year, well before his May retirement or the July deployment alert.

Jim Sheater, who was a National Guardsman in 2005 and deployed to Iraq that same year:

As for the timing of his retirement… you don’t just show up on your last day and say I’m done. A NG retirement packet must be submitted a minimum of 180 days prior to the intended retirement date. You are eligible to retire after 20 years of creditable service, Walz had 24.

[…]

Tim Walz officially retired from military service on May 16th, 2005. […] He had to have submitted his retirement no later than 17 November 2004 to have it [a]pproved and processed. And keep in mind, he was still a teacher and not elected to office at this time so it’s unlikely he had major political clout to move the process along.

CNN:

Walz filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for Congress on February 10, 2005. The next month, after the guard announced a possible deployment to Iraq within two years, Walz’s campaign issued a statement saying he intended to stay in the race.

“I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment,” Walz said in the March 2005 campaign release.

“As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq,” he continued, adding: “I don’t want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race. I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic supporters and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq.”

Walz retired from the Army National Guard in May 2005, according to the Minnesota National Guard. In a 2009 interview for the Library of Congress, Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees.

This is similar to the observation from Jim Sheater:

But he was 41 years old, had a young daughter and most importantly already did 24 years and was considering a run for Congress. While the law doesn’t require it, I personally consider retirement from [the] military before running for office to be the honorable thing to do so as to eliminate potential conflicts of interest.

Military.com:

His Guard career included responding to natural disasters in the United States, as well as a deployment to Italy to support U.S. operations in Afghanistan, according to a 2018 article by Minnesota Public Radio. Walz earned several awards, including the Army Commendation Medal and two Army Achievement Medals, according to his military records. Working a civilian job as a high school teacher and football coach, the Nebraska native was also named that state's Citizen Soldier of the Year in 1989, according to official biographies.

During the 2022 Minnesota governor's race, Walz' opponent accused him of leaving the Guard when he did in order to avoid a deployment to Iraq, though Walz maintained he retired in order to focus on running for Congress, according to the Star Tribune newspaper.

Washington Post:

Joe Eustice, who served in the National Guard with Walz for at least a decade, said he vehemently disagrees with Walz’s politics but described him as a good soldier. In an interview, he rejected assertions that Walz avoided combat duty.

CNN:

”He was a great soldier,” Eustice said. “When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave.”

Another National Guardsman, Ryan Marti, who knew and served with Walz said this to CNN:

[Marti]: I don't think he tried to avoid that deployment at all. In fact, I'm really glad he went to Congress and did what he did….I think him going to Congress was like taking a promotion. He did a lot of good things… but he did even more better things for us as a Congressman, Governor, and hopefully going forward as a Vice President

Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger:

This is the insane thing. Every month thousands of people retire. The fact that Walz did 25 years, 5 OVER retirement eligibility, and 4 years after 9/11, is honorable.

Many people at 25 years today would get out even if there was a deployment possibility because they DID THEIR DUTY.

Did Walz claim that he did combat duty in Afghanistan? The answer is NO. He truthfully said that he was deployed in Europe to support the war effort associated with Operating Enduring Freedom.

There is a false quote doing the rounds based on an interview Walz did years ago. Here it is:

Tim Walz was caught on camera lying about his military service, “I deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. My battalion provided security in the early stages of the war in Afghanistan” Walz in fact didn’t serve in Afghanistan.

As the Community fact check against that tweet says:

This quote is not what Walz said in the linked video. The second sentence should be, "My battalion provided base security throughout the European theater from Turkey to England in the early stages of the war in Afghanistan."

This is accurate to military records. [LINK]

Christopher Scalia:

Stop using this clip to support the stolen valor charges. Walz does not say he served in Afghanistan—he says his battalion “provided base security throughout the European theater,” and that his former battalion went on to Iraq without him.

The phrase “I was deployed in support of…” is very slippery, but he immediately explains what it means.

In response to another deceptive claim using a Walz video, A. J. Delgado said:

LOL. This is so dumb. He says he carried weapons "in war." He DID. He served in Europe, after we had gone to war with Afghanistan, preparing and training security forces there. Now, if he'd said he carried weapons in "active combat" then, yes, that would probably be misleading."

Roger Misso:

I supported Operation Enduring Freedom.

I never set foot in Afghanistan.

How?

I flew off of an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean supporting troops on the ground.

Much like Tim Walz supported OEF in Italy and Turkey through base security to support troops on the ground.

The inability for some folks to understand what OEF is - and that tens of thousands of servicemembers supported it from outside of Afghanistan - is a commentary on how little the American public supported or understood our presence there.

That’s not on Gov Walz - that’s on you.

What’s more, there would be no OEF without Gov Walz, me, and the thousands of servicemembers who supported the effort from ships and bases all over the CENTCOM, INDOPACOM, and EUCOM AORs.

To suggest otherwise is wrong and troublingly ignorant about military readiness.

Daily Beast:

VoteVets, a progressive veterans advocacy group, promptly fired back at Vance, a Marine who deployed to Iraq once for about six months.

“JD Vance attacking another Veteran holds no honor and no semblance of reality. This is a blatant, baseless, and abhorrent attack. Shame on him,” the group wrote on X, followed shortly by a “fiction versus facts” graphic reiterating what CNN and others had fact-checked.

[…]

“In his 24 years of service, the Governor carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times,” a spokesperson told CNN. “Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country – in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way.”

The irony of all this is that the person who has in fact openly supported a candidate who actually lied about being in Afghanistan is J. D. Vance.

[Other image courtesy of Huy Nguyen Photographer]

In this post, I’m sharing examples of Republicans who pointed out that Trump and his allies in the GOP were responsible for blocking and killing a strong and bipartisan border bill advanced by the Biden/Harris administration. It is a bill that Republican Senator James Lankford, a co-author, pointed out would have “completely shut down the border in many ways”.

Sen. James Lankford

[CNN’s Manu Raju]: The Speaker says that if one migrant comes across the border that it is one migrant too many [and that] your bill doesn’t enough to completely shut down the border.

[Lankford]: Actually, it does completely shut down the border in many ways.

Here are some examples of Republicans pointing out how Trump and his GOP allies in Congress sabotaged this bill.

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham: Everybody who says we should do something about border legislation, you're absolutely right but unfortunately, we didn't get there because Trump opposed the bipartisan border [Senate] deal. I hate that…

Sen. Mitt Romney

[Romney]: …the fact that [Trump] would communicate to Republican Senators and Congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is really appalling…

Rep. Dan Crenshaw

[Crenshaw]: I’m extremely disappointed by the very strange maneuvering by many on the Right to torpedo a potential border reform fill. We have a bill that, on net, significantly decreases illegal immigration and we sabotaged that. That is inconsistent with what we told our voters that we would do….[an] unacceptable dereliction of our duty.

Sen. James Lankford

[Lankford]: I had a popular [Republican] commentator … that told me flat out, before they knew any of the contents of the Bill, nothing was out at that point, they told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the Presidential election. By the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me.

Sen. Mitch McConnell

[McConnell]: …but our nominee for President [Trump] didn't seem to want us to do anything at all.

Fox host, Neil Cavuto and Sen. James Lankford

[Cavuto]: I know you’re trying not to zing your colleagues, but it was your colleagues, sir, who torpedoed this, who didn’t get the facts right on what you just outlined…they killed it, ironically not Democrats.

[Lankford]: Right. It was. And it was painful to be able to watch […] several of my colleagues started looking for ways after President Trump said ‘don’t fix anything' during the Presidential election, [it’s] the single biggest issue during the election, don’t resolve this. We’ll resolve it next year. Quite a few of my colleagues backed up, looked for a reason to shoot against it and then walked away. […]

[Cavuto]: That’s on Donald Trump, Senator.

In the meantime, because Trump and his foot soldiers in Congress sabotaged the border bill, President Biden issued an executive order in June 2024, which was described as follows:

President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history.

The result? Crossings are below where they were during the latter part of the Trump administration.

Unlawful border crossings drop for 5th straight month, reaching lowest level since September 2020

[…]

While crossings have been declining for months, U.S. officials have attributed the steep decrease in illegal border crossings in recent weeks to a proclamation issued by President Biden in early June that has dramatically curtailed access to the overwhelmed U.S. asylum system.

[…]

Migration to the U.S. border has dropped so markedly that the weekly daily average of daily illegal border crossings is inching close to the 1,500 threshold the Biden administration set to deactivate its asylum crackdown.

[…]

Other factors have also played a role in the dramatic decrease in border crossings. At the request of the U.S., Mexican officials have overseen a large-scale crackdown on migrants over the past months, stopping many from setting foot on U.S. soil in the first place.

Let’s absorb that, along with the fact that VP Kamala Harris’ actions as part of her diplomatic efforts with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, amid other factors, resulted in a huge drop in migrants from those countries (see my 3-part series here). It’s no wonder then, that last week, VP Harris was “endorsed by border mayors in swing-state Arizona”.

[Image via WikiImages]

In prior posts, I briefly highlighted the fact that VP Kamala Harris was never a “border czar”, that she was not responsible for managing what was happening at the American border with Mexico and she was, instead, responsible for diplomatic engagement with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to reduce the likelihood that their citizens feel compelled to leave their respective countries. Aaron Reichlin-Milnick, Policy Director at the Immigration Council, has discussed this in numerous tweets (example), and summed this up as follows:

Border policy is about what happens AT the U.S.-Mexico border—once migrants who left their homes get here.

Root causes policy is about what happens in migrants' home countries—hoping to convince people not to leave home.

In March 2024, the White House announced this:

Vice President Kamala Harris and the Partnership for Central America (PCA) today announced more than $1 billion in new private sector commitments, as part of Central America Forward (CAF), a public-private partnership that was created in response to the Vice President’s Call to Action for Northern Central America.

Today’s announcement brings the overall total of new commitments to more than $5.2 billion since May 2021.

To date, CAF and other PCA partners include more than 50 companies and organizations that have made commitments to support inclusive economic growth in the region. These entities represent the financial services, textiles and apparel, agriculture, technology and telecommunications, and nonprofit sectors, among others.

As Reichlin-Milnick points out:

…the White House has been consistently putting out press releases touting VP Harris' root causes work since her original assignment.

Adding to the March 2024 example above, here are examples from July 2021, April 2022, June 2022, and February 2023.

Crunching the data, Adam Isacson at WOLA had this to say:

It would be too exuberant to credit the VP's "root causes strategy," but since 2021 there has been a sharp drop in migration from northern Central America—and from almost nowhere else.

Here's Border Patrol + Port of Entry migrant encounters. Table here [link]

Reichlin-Milnick added (with an accompanying chart):

As a matter of fact, numbers from those countries HAVE gone [down] over the last 3 years (and never again reached the record set in May 2019 under the Trump admin). I would caution against attributing this to VP Harris' work, given how much else has gone on.

If the numbers had stayed the same or had gone up, we would have heard endless criticisms that VP Harris’ policies were useless. With the numbers having gone down substantially, it’s not unreasonable to assume that she deserved at least some credit for that outcome!

Kevin Drum was a bit more explicit:

Illegal migration from the three countries Harris targeted declined from 50% of the total to less than 20% today. In raw numbers, migration from those countries peaked at about 100,000 shortly after Harris took over and began declining after that. Total migration today is less than 30,000 per month.

Here’s the accompanying chart from Kevin’s blog.

BOTTOM LINE: If only outcomes matter - and you want to bring politics into judging outcomes - it’s not unreasonable to credit VP Harris for at least part of this result.

VP Kamala Harris was NOT a "border czar"

I’d like to stay on this subject for another day to also briefly comment on why such false claims continue to percolate. [For reference, here’s the original fact sheet from the White House in 2021, explaining that VP Harris was going to focus on diplomatic efforts in some Central American countries, also confirmed here.]

The falsehood about Harris spread by Republicans is about to take on an additional dimension according to this latest bit of news (via AR-M):

House Republicans tee up vote condemning Harris as ‘border czar’

As Border Report points out:

The resolution, led by House GOP conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), references Harris’s role as “border czar,” though that was not an official title that Biden gave Harris, nor was she asked to oversee the entirety of policies on the U.S.-Mexico border. Biden did ask Harris to head up a diplomatic campaign to address the root causes of migration from countries in Central America.

Immigration lawyer and expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, again, pointedly commented that:

Not only was VP Harris not "border czar," a nonexistent position, but she wasn't actually asked to oversee ANY policies on the U.S.-Mexico border, let alone "the entirety." Genuinely, the ONLY thing he assigned her to do was the diplomatic campaign.

He discussed this in other posts to rebut other related claims, for example:

The idea that "not once" did the White House push back against the border czar line is simply false.

Since the beginning, the White House pushed back against the claim. Harris repeatedly rejected the characterization. Mayorkas corrected Senators who said it in hearings.

Proof [images]

The perpetuation of this falsehood by the Republican party has one purpose and one purpose only: it is to falsely accuse VP Harris of being incompetent when it comes to what was happening at the US/Mexico border.

There are some who accuse supporters of VP Harris of trying to change reality, but again, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick has receipts from 2021:

Some of us have been yelling about this from the very beginning.

But I would argue that the worst look here isn't those who got it wrong on March 24, 2021, it's those who got it wrong over and over in the years afterwards, despite repeated denials by the White House and DHS.

Let’s use a striking example from yesterday to get a glimpse into how GOP propaganda or falsehoods make their way to voters.

Stef Kight at Axios published an article which was summarized on Twitter by Axios as:

The Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the "border czar" title — which she never actually had.

Soon after that tweet, Andy Kaczynski at CNN remarked:

Incredible community note on here [which points out that] Axios use[d] the term “border czar” repeatedly previously for Harris.

In one of those rare corrections in the media, today Axios posted an update acknowledging they were part of the reason why the term “border czar” as falsely linked to VP Harris since 2021, as summarized by Yashar Ali:

Axios has now updated its story to note that it too referred to Harris as “border czar” in 2021.

“This article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ back in 2021.”

This is a lesson for Democratic supporters, among numerous other examples like it - always be skeptical of critiques or claims in the mainstream media about prominent Democrats. Claims that might seem superficially true are often GOP lies passed on uncritically as fact.

[Image via OpenClipart-Vectors]

“Kamala had one job,” Nikki Haley told the crowd at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last week. “One job. And that was to fix the border. Now imagine her in charge of the entire country.”

In fact, Harris was never put in charge of the border or immigration policy. Nor was she involved in overseeing law-enforcement efforts or guiding the federal response to the crisis. Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north.

It was the first high-profile assignment in Harris' tenure as Vice President, and it was an especially thankless one. […]

Here’s Congressman Jim McGovern, Ranking Member on the House Rules Committee, confronting a Republican witness - asking him to provide any evidence for the false claim that President Biden appointed VP Harris as a “border czar”. The witness was unable to do so.

More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, immigration lawyer and Policy Director at the American Immigration Council:

Another day and I see the GOP is continuing to lead with the proven falsehood that Harris was "named border czar."

You can go read Biden's remarks yourself; he is very clear that she was asked to lead a diplomatic strategy, not given a border policy role.

Finally, here’s Jeh Johnson, former US Secretary of Homeland Security and former General Counsel for the DOD under the Obama administration, pushing back on this false claim from Fox News’ Steve Doocy (via Lis Power):

First of all, Border Czar, the title, is a title Republicans gave her -- the WH, the president, did not call her that. Her role was diplomacy w/ Central America, she is not the border czar

[Image via StockSnap]

Subscribe now