Trump Unleashes Barrage of Falsehoods Against Vice President Harris at North Carolina Rally
Former President Donald Trump, in his first campaign rally since Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, launched a series of attacks against her, riddled with factual inaccuracies. Trump’s speech in North Carolina targeted Harris’s personal and political background, her record as vice president, and her policy stances. A fact-check reveals at least ten demonstrably false claims, raising concerns about the veracity of the former president’s rhetoric.
One of Trump’s central attacks focused on Harris’s alleged stance on Social Security. He claimed both Biden and Harris were considering raising the retirement age. This is demonstrably false regarding Harris. She has consistently supported strengthening Social Security, co-sponsoring legislation to increase benefits rather than reduce them by raising the retirement age. While Biden has entertained the idea in the past, he has firmly opposed it as president. Trump’s attempt to link Harris to an unpopular policy position appears unfounded.
Trump also made incendiary claims about Harris’s position on abortion, accusing her of supporting "abortions in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy" and even "the execution of a baby" after birth. These allegations are categorically false. Harris has never endorsed post-birth infanticide, a practice that is illegal nationwide. While a strong supporter of abortion rights, Harris has not specified a limit on the timing of abortions. However, data shows that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, typically occurring due to severe health risks or fatal fetal anomalies. Harris’s position aligns with restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which allowed states to regulate abortion after fetal viability but with exceptions for the mother’s health.
Trump’s mischaracterizations extended to Harris’s stance on climate change, alleging she wants to "outlaw red meat." This is another fabrication. While Harris has expressed support for encouraging Americans to reduce red meat consumption through dietary guidelines and incentives, she has never advocated for an outright ban. At a 2019 climate town hall, she explicitly stated her preference for incentives and education over outright bans, even admitting her fondness for cheeseburgers. The Trump campaign’s cited evidence – a YouTube video and an article – accurately reflects her position on encouraging reduced meat consumption, not banning it.
The former president’s attacks delved into conspiracy theories as well, accusing Harris of orchestrating the legal cases against him. Trump, without evidence, claimed that Harris “headed up” the investigations, a stark departure from his previous assertions that Biden was behind them. This accusation is baseless. The various cases against Trump are being pursued by independent entities: local district attorneys in Manhattan and Fulton County, and a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General. There is no evidence to suggest Harris’s involvement in any of these proceedings.
Trump also resurrected false claims about Harris’s role in immigration policy. He repeated the debunked assertion that Harris, as "border czar," never visited the border. This is untrue on two counts. Firstly, Harris did visit the border in 2021. Secondly, she was never appointed “border czar.” Her role focused on diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central American countries. While Republicans argue that this is still a border-related task, the “border czar” label misrepresents the scope of her assignment, which centered on addressing the underlying issues driving migration.
Trump further exaggerated the number of migrants entering the US under the Biden administration, claiming Harris “allowed 20 million illegal aliens to stampede into our country.” This figure is a gross exaggeration. Official border encounter data, which includes both legal entries and apprehensions between ports of entry, totals around 10 million since February 2021. An “encounter” does not equate to entry, as many individuals are turned away. Even including estimated "gotaways," the total remains significantly below Trump’s claim. Moreover, the same individual can be counted multiple times if they repeatedly attempt to cross the border. Therefore, the figure cannot accurately represent the number of successful entries into the US.
Trump also made misleading claims connecting Harris to fentanyl deaths, stating, “We’re losing 300,000 people a year through fentanyl that comes through our border.” This is demonstrably false. CDC data shows approximately 75,000 deaths involving synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, in 2023. The total number of overdose deaths from all drugs was around 107,500 – a tragic number, but still far less than Trump’s inflated figure. Experts have dismissed the 300,000 figure as fabricated, highlighting potential undercounting issues related to prescription drug overdoses among seniors, not illicit fentanyl smuggled across the border. Furthermore, much of the fentanyl smuggling is conducted by US citizens through legal ports of entry, not migrants crossing illegally.
Trump also attacked Harris’s relationship with the Jewish community for not attending Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress, claiming she is "totally against the Jewish people." This accusation is baseless. Harris, married to a Jewish man, has consistently denounced antisemitism, expressed support for the Jewish community and its traditions, and affirmed America’s commitment to Israel’s security. While she has criticized some Israeli government actions, this does not equate to being “against the Jewish people.” Her personal connections to the Jewish community and her public statements contradict Trump’s assertion.
Finally, Trump falsely claimed Harris “failed her law exams,” implying she never passed the bar. While she did fail her first attempt, she subsequently passed and was admitted to the California bar in 1990. Trump’s phrasing deliberately misrepresents her qualifications, transforming a temporary setback into a permanent failure.
The repeated and demonstrably false claims made by Trump against Vice President Harris raise concerns about the accuracy and fairness of his campaign rhetoric. These misrepresentations distort Harris’s record and positions, potentially misleading voters and undermining informed public discourse. They highlight the importance of fact-checking and critical analysis of political claims, especially during election cycles.
