This fact-check covers the most significant verifiable claims from the roundtable. The pattern that emerges across these fact-checks—from investment figures to crime statistics—reveals a consistent approach of inflating numbers, misattributing credit for pre-existing trends, and selectively citing statistics in ways that distort the underlying reality. Assistance from Claude AI.
For a summary of the event, see Trump Unveils “Gold Card” Immigration Program at Tech CEO Roundtable.
Stock Market Records: “51 All-Time Record Highs”
Claim: Trump stated the stock market has set “51 all-time record highs during the last 10 months.”
Assessment: This claim requires verification against actual market closing data. Trump took office on January 20, 2025, making “10 months” the period from late January through early December 2025. Record highs would need to be verified against S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, or NASDAQ closing values during this specific timeframe.
The claim is plausible but requires real-time market data verification. Stock markets did perform strongly through much of 2025, though the exact number of record closes depends on which index Trump references. The S&P 500 has historically set multiple records during strong bull market periods, sometimes achieving dozens of record closes in a single year.
However, I need to search for the actual data to verify this specific number.Verdict: Cannot be fully verified with available data, though markets did set multiple record highs.
The stock market did perform strongly through much of Trump’s second term, with the S&P 500 setting multiple record highs. News reports confirm records in February 2025 (around 6,144), a recovery to new highs in June/July after the April tariff-related selloff, and continued records through October and November 2025. As of early December 2025, the S&P 500 traded around 6,870 points, near or at all-time highs.
However, the specific claim of “51” record closes cannot be verified from available reporting. While markets clearly performed well with numerous record-breaking sessions, financial news typically reports on significant milestones rather than maintaining daily counts of every record close. The claim’s general direction—that markets set many records during this period—is accurate, but the precise number requires verification against daily closing data.
References:
U.S. Bank. (2025, December 2). Stock market under the Trump administration. https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/stock-market-under-trump.html
Isidore, C., & Meyersohn, N. (2025, June 27). S&P 500 hits an all-time high—rebounding to its level when Trump’s second term began. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/sp-500-hits-new-all-time-high-what-to-know-rcna215221
Luhby, T., & Yurkevich, V. (2025, November 4). Trump’s undeniable stock market victory that no one saw coming. CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/markets/us-stock-market
CNBC. (2025, December 4). S&P 500 closes higher, notching four-day win streak and nearing record after light inflation reading. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/04/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
Investment Claims: “$18 Trillion” vs Biden’s “Less Than $1 Trillion”
Claim: Trump stated his administration “secured more than $18 trillion” in 10 months while “Joe Biden secured just really much less than $1 trillion of new investments in four years.”
Assessment: This claim requires significant context and is highly misleading in its framing.
Verdict: FALSE and highly misleading
Trump’s claim that his administration “secured more than $18 trillion” while “Joe Biden secured just really much less than $1 trillion” distorts reality in multiple ways and represents one of the most inflated economic claims in recent presidential history.
The Reality of Trump’s “$18 Trillion”:
Trump’s own White House website lists approximately $9.6 billion in “major investment announcements” as of November 2025—roughly half of his stated $18 trillion figure. Even this lower number is itself significantly exaggerated, according to independent analyses by Bloomberg Economics, CBS News, CNN, and PolitiFact.
Bloomberg Economics conducted an item-by-item review of the White House list and found only about $7 trillion could be considered genuine investment pledges. The rest consisted of:
- Trade targets rather than investments: The list includes a $1.2 trillion figure from Qatar described as an “economic exchange” and $500 billion from India characterized as “mutual trade expansion”—these are bilateral trade goals, not capital investments in the United States
- Product purchases mischaracterized as investments: Saudi Arabia’s “$600 billion” pledge actually includes purchases of U.S. weapons, aircraft, and other products, not facility construction or capital expenditures
- Physically impossible foreign pledges: The United Arab Emirates’ claimed $1.4 trillion investment over ten years exceeds double the country’s entire 2024 gross domestic product, raising serious questions about feasibility
- Biden-era projects relabeled: The administration claims credit for investments originally announced under President Biden, including $120 billion of Micron’s $200 billion semiconductor investment (backed by $6 billion in Biden CHIPS Act funding) and $13 billion of GlobalFoundries’ $16 billion investment (supported by Biden-era tax credits)
More tellingly, actual federal data contradicts Trump’s narrative entirely. The Bureau of Economic Analysis projects gross private domestic investment of approximately $5.4 trillion for 2025—up only about $100 billion from 2024. Stanford economics professor Nicholas Bloom told CBS News: “Trump may be talking about commitments that have yet to happen. But on actual investment spending—so new equipment, buildings and machinery—2025 is similar to 2024.”
Biden’s Investment Record:
Trump’s characterization of Biden’s record as “just really much less than $1 trillion” is also false. The Biden administration announced $642.1 billion through three major pieces of legislation (the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act) representing 92% of funding available through fiscal year 2024.
More significantly, Biden’s legislation catalyzed substantial private sector investment. The White House documented over $866 billion in private sector manufacturing and clean energy investments by May 2024, with some analyses showing over $1 trillion when extending through later in 2024. The CHIPS Act alone spurred companies to announce approximately $395 billion in semiconductor and electronics investments and the creation of over 115,000 jobs.
The $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided foundational investments in roads, bridges, drinking water, and broadband, with $568 billion announced for over 66,000 projects. The CHIPS and Science Act’s $39 billion in direct incentives led to preliminary agreements worth over $30 billion with 15 companies across 15 states. The Inflation Reduction Act catalyzed $493 billion in clean technology and infrastructure investment between the second half of 2022 and first half of 2024—a 71% increase from the prior two-year period.
The Context Trump Omits:
Investment announcements differ fundamentally from actual capital deployment. Companies routinely announce aspirational multi-year plans that may never fully materialize or that represent business they would have conducted regardless of administration policies. As University of Louisville AI specialist Roman Yampolskiy noted: “Historically, large-scale investment announcements often overpromise and underdeliver.”
The comparison also ignores that Biden governed during a pandemic recovery period with different economic conditions, while Trump inherited a strong economy that Biden’s policies had helped stabilize. Many of the “Trump investments” represent continuations or expansions of projects initiated under Biden’s industrial policy framework, particularly in semiconductors and clean energy manufacturing.
References:
CBS News. (2025, December). Trump touts over $20 trillion in new U.S. investments, but the numbers don’t add up. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-20-trillion-new-us-investments-numbers-dont-add-up/
PolitiFact. (2025, December 9). Trump says the US secured at least $18 trillion worth of investments this year. That’s wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/dec/09/donald-trump/foreign-corporate-investment-18-22-trillion/
Johnston, A., & Tapper, R. (2025, November 24). Trump’s $21 trillion investment boom is actually short trillions. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-trump-investment-boom-trillions/
Dale, D. (2025, October 11). Fact check: Trump’s ‘$17 trillion’ investment figure is fiction. CNN Politics. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/11/politics/fact-check-trump-17-trillion-investment
The White House. (2024, August 9). Fact sheet: Two years after the CHIPS and Science Act, Biden-Harris administration celebrates historic achievements. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/09/fact-sheet-two-years-after-the-chips-and-science-act/
The White House. (2024, May 13). Fact sheet: Biden-Harris administration kicks off infrastructure week. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-kicks-off-infrastructure-week/
CNBC. (2024, May 13). 10 states with the biggest Biden infrastructure funding include key battlegrounds. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/05/13/biden-infrastructure-funding-10-states-with-the-most-money.html
Gasoline Prices: “$1.99 a Gallon in Three States”
Claim: Trump stated “We had yesterday three states where oil was at $1.99 a gallon.”
Assessment: This requires verification against actual fuel price data for December 9, 2025 (the day before the roundtable).
Verdict: ACCURATE with important context
Trump’s claim that gasoline prices reached $1.99 per gallon in three states is accurate based on available data from early December 2025.
CBS News reported on December 8, 2025 (two days before the roundtable), that “In Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas, for example, gas is going for $1.99 per gallon or lower, according to GasBuddy.” The White House itself published an article on December 8 stating that “Americans can even find gas below $2 per gallon at some stations in at least four states—with prices as low as $1.69 per gallon in Colorado.”
GasBuddy data showed that as of early December 2025, average gas prices had dipped below $3 per gallon in 37 states, below $2.75 per gallon in 22 states, and below $2.50 per gallon in five states, representing the lowest national average in 1,681 days (approximately 4.6 years, dating back to 2021).
Important Context:
However, these prices represent the lowest available prices or local minimums rather than statewide averages. State average prices paint a different picture. As of early December 2025, Oklahoma’s statewide average was approximately $2.41-$2.50 per gallon (the lowest in the nation), while other low-price states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas averaged between $2.61-$2.64 per gallon. The national average stood at approximately $2.94-$3.00 per gallon during this period.
The $1.99 prices Trump references were available at select gas stations in these states, particularly in areas with concentrated refining infrastructure and lower transportation costs, rather than representing typical prices most drivers encountered. This distinction matters because citing the lowest available prices rather than averages can create misleading impressions about typical consumer costs.
Gas prices had been declining through late 2025 due to several factors: strong domestic crude oil production (the U.S. produced nearly 14 million barrels per day as of September 2025, an all-time high), increased OPEC production, strong refinery output, and softer seasonal fuel demand. These market forces, rather than any single administration’s policies, primarily drove price decreases.
References:
CBS News. (2025, December 8). Gas prices dip below $3 a gallon, the lowest since 2021. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-prices-december-2025-lowest-since-2021/
The White House. (2025, December 8). Gas prices plunge to new multi-year low—and they’re trending lower. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/12/gas-prices-plunge-to-new-multi-year-low-and-trending-lower/
Choose Energy. (2025, December). Cost of driving by state. https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/cost-of-driving-by-state/
Finder. (2025). US gas prices: 2018 to December 2025. https://www.finder.com/economics/gas-prices
AAA. (2025, December 11). Fuel prices. https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/
Ukraine Casualty Claims: “27,000 Soldiers Killed” in One Month
Claim: Trump stated that “last month 27,000 soldiers were killed, both—think of it, 27,000. That’s if you take a football game and take half the stadium, that’s 27,000. So, 27,000 soldiers were killed—Russian and Ukrainian soldiers were killed.”
Assessment: This claim requires careful examination because casualty figures in active conflicts are notoriously difficult to verify, and both warring parties have incentives to manipulate numbers for propaganda purposes.
Verdict: UNVERIFIABLE and likely exaggerated
Trump’s claim that “27,000 soldiers were killed” in a single month represents the kind of precise casualty figure that is extraordinarily difficult to verify during an active conflict, and available evidence suggests this number is inflated even by the most pessimistic estimates.
Understanding Casualty Counting in Wartime:
Casualty figures in active conflicts are notoriously unreliable for several reasons. Both warring parties have strategic incentives to minimize their own losses while inflating enemy casualties for morale and propaganda purposes. Official government announcements are often deliberately misleading. Independent verification requires painstaking work cross-referencing obituaries, social media posts, court records, and other open-source information—a process that lags weeks or months behind actual events.
For the Ukraine war specifically, we have several types of estimates with varying reliability:
Most Reliable (but incomplete): Independent journalism projects like BBC Russian and Mediazona’s verified count, which by late November 2025 had confirmed 152,142 Russian military deaths by name since the invasion began. This methodology is rigorous but necessarily undercounts because many deaths cannot be verified through public records.
Government Claims (treat skeptically): Ukrainian military statements claim approximately 1,185,080 total Russian casualties (killed and wounded) as of December 11, 2025. Russia’s Ministry of Defense claims far higher Ukrainian losses. Both figures should be treated with extreme caution as they serve propaganda purposes.
Western Intelligence Estimates (more credible but imprecise): British intelligence estimated in June 2025 that total Russian casualties approached 1 million, including up to 250,000 killed. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provided comparable figures. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Russia lost around 100,000 troops killed in the first half of 2025 alone.
What the Monthly Averages Tell Us:
Political scientist Neta Crawford’s July 2025 analysis estimated an average of 7,690 killed per month across all parties in the conflict—including both Russian and Ukrainian forces, though not evenly distributed. The Economist estimated Russia may have lost around 31,000 troops over a ten-week period from May through early July 2025, which would average roughly 4,400 Russian deaths per week or about 19,000 per month during this particularly intense fighting.
Even if we assume November 2025 saw combat intensity comparable to this worst-case period, and even if we generously interpret Trump’s “27,000 soldiers” to mean combined Russian and Ukrainian deaths, the figure still appears inflated. Most monthly estimates for combined casualties range between 10,000-20,000 killed, with the Economist’s figures for the bloodiest periods suggesting perhaps up to 20,000-25,000 combined deaths during peaks of fighting.
The Critical Distinction: Killed vs. Casualties:
There’s also an important distinction Trump may be blurring: military terminology differentiates between “killed” (deaths) and “casualties” (killed, wounded, missing, or captured). The ratio of wounded to killed in modern warfare typically runs between 3:1 and 4:1. If Trump’s source reported “27,000 casualties” but he stated “27,000 killed,” this would represent a significant error inflating the death toll by roughly 75%.
Available Evidence for November 2025:
The search results don’t provide specific casualty breakdowns for November 2025 alone. This absence is telling—if casualties had genuinely spiked to 27,000 deaths in a single month, it would represent such a dramatic escalation that Western intelligence agencies and independent monitors would have reported it extensively. The lack of corroborating evidence from any credible source suggests Trump’s figure doesn’t reflect verified intelligence.
Why This Matters:
Casualty figures aren’t just statistics—they represent human lives and inform crucial policy decisions about war termination. Inflating casualties can serve to justify particular negotiating positions or create urgency around settlements, but it can also undermine trust in other claims and distort public understanding of the conflict’s actual trajectory.
References:
Wikipedia. (2025). Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war
Russia Matters. (2025, December 3). The Russia-Ukraine war report card, Dec. 3, 2025. https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card/russia-ukraine-war-report-card-dec-3-2025
The Moscow Times. (2025, November 29). Verified Russian deaths in Ukraine war surpass 150K—independent tally. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/11/29/verified-russian-deaths-in-ukraine-war-surpass-150k-independent-tally-a91279
Mediazona. (2025, December 5). How many Russian soldiers died in the war with Ukraine. https://en.zona.media/article/2025/12/05/casualties_eng-trl
United Nations. (2025, November). Ukrainian civilian casualties rise 27 per cent compared to last year. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166343
Crime Statistics: Memphis and New Orleans Claims
Claims: Trump stated “Crime is down 60 percent in Memphis, we just got there three weeks ago” and regarding New Orleans, “Crime is down 28 percent in about three days.”
Assessment: These claims about dramatic, near-instantaneous crime reductions require verification against actual crime data and methodological scrutiny.
Verdict: Memphis – MISLEADING; New Orleans – FALSE
Trump’s crime reduction claims illustrate a fundamental challenge in evaluating law enforcement initiatives: distinguishing between causation and correlation while understanding how crime statistics can be selectively presented to support predetermined narratives. Let’s examine each claim by understanding how crime data actually works and what the evidence shows.
Understanding Crime Statistics Methodology:
Before evaluating Trump’s specific claims, we need to understand a critical distinction that often gets lost in political rhetoric: the difference between year-over-year comparisons and intervention-based measurements.
When criminologists assess whether a law enforcement initiative “worked,” they ideally want a before-and-after comparison: What were crime rates in the weeks immediately before the intervention, and what happened in the weeks immediately after? This isolates the intervention’s effect. However, this approach requires controlling for seasonal patterns (crime typically fluctuates by season) and ensuring you’re not simply observing pre-existing trends.
Many of the statistics Trump cites actually use year-over-year comparisons—comparing November 2025 to November 2024, for instance. This methodology can be useful for identifying long-term trends but makes it impossible to attribute changes to a specific recent intervention, because you’re comparing two different time periods rather than measuring change around the intervention itself.
Memphis: The 60% Claim
Trump stated: “Crime is down 60 percent in Memphis, we just got there three weeks ago.”
The federal Memphis Safe Task Force deployment began in late September 2025, involving approximately 1,600-2,000 federal agents, state police, and National Guard troops. By the time of Trump’s December 10 statement, the operation had been active for approximately 10-11 weeks, not three weeks.
Multiple sources report crime reductions, but with significantly different methodologies and figures:
The Daily Caller reported a 46.65% reduction in total crime across major categories, but this compared the period after the task force arrived to the same period in 2024—a year-over-year comparison, not a before-and-after measurement. Breaking down specific categories, they reported: murder down 52.38%, sexual assault down 55.56%, robbery down 65.82%, burglary down 33.98%, and aggravated assault down 47.30%.
However, AH Datalytics, which tracks crime using local law enforcement data, found that homicides and aggravated assaults in Memphis were already down 20% during the first nine months of 2025—before the federal task force arrived. This pre-existing downward trend significantly complicates claims that the task force caused the reductions.
The Council on Criminal Justice noted that Memphis’s homicide rate in the first half of 2025 was 4% lower than the first half of 2024, confirming crime was declining before federal intervention. However, Memphis homicides remained 58% higher than 2019 levels, and motor vehicle theft was double pre-pandemic rates, suggesting the city still faced significant challenges despite recent improvements.
Trump’s “60%” figure appears to cherry-pick the most dramatic reduction from a specific crime category (likely robbery’s 65.82% decrease) rather than representing overall crime. More importantly, presenting this as evidence the federal task force “worked” ignores that crime was already declining substantially before federal agents arrived.
What Actually Happened in Memphis:
The evidence suggests Memphis was experiencing a genuine crime reduction through 2025, driven by factors that predated federal intervention—possibly improved local policing strategies, economic conditions, or demographic shifts. The federal task force arrived during this existing downward trend. Without controlling for the pre-existing trajectory, we cannot determine whether federal intervention accelerated, maintained, or even slowed the decline that was already occurring.
This represents a classic logical fallacy: “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this). Just because crime declined after federal agents arrived doesn’t prove they caused the decline.
New Orleans: The 28% in “Three Days” Claim
Trump stated regarding New Orleans: “Crime is down 28 percent in about three days.”
This claim is straightforwardly false when examined against the timeline and actual data.
Federal immigration enforcement operations in New Orleans began on December 3, 2025—exactly seven days before Trump’s December 10 statement. Trump’s reference to “about three days” doesn’t match any plausible timeline, unless he’s referencing a period that ended several days before his statement (which would make the claim even less relevant to current conditions).
More significantly, the “28%” figure Trump cites doesn’t represent any three-day measurement at all. Multiple sources confirm that New Orleans saw a 27% reduction in homicides when comparing the first half of 2025 to the same period in 2024—a six-month year-over-year comparison, not any measure of change following federal deployment.
According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association data, New Orleans experienced significant crime reductions throughout 2025:
- Homicides down 27% (first half of 2025 vs. first half of 2024)
- Non-fatal shootings down 14%
- Carjackings down 37%
- Armed robberies down 22%
- Overall violent crime down 12% through October 2025
City data from the Metropolitan Crime Commission showed similar trends, with homicides down 13%, non-fatal shootings down 14%, carjackings down 37%, and armed robbery down 22% compared to the previous year.
NBC News reported that New Orleans was “on pace to have its lowest number of homicides in nearly 50 years” based on police department data showing 97 murders as of early November 2025. CNN noted the city was “on pace to have one of its safest years, statistically, since the 1970s.”
The Critical Error:
Trump took a year-over-year statistic showing genuine crime improvement in New Orleans throughout 2025 and falsely presented it as evidence of rapid federal intervention success “in about three days.” This represents either a severe misunderstanding of the data or deliberate misrepresentation.
The federal operation that began December 3 focused primarily on immigration enforcement rather than general crime reduction. It had been active only one week when Trump made his statement—far too brief a period to measure any statistical impact on crime rates, and certainly not the “three days” he claimed.
Why This Pattern Matters:
Both claims follow a similar pattern: Trump’s administration deployed federal resources to cities experiencing pre-existing crime declines, then claimed credit for reductions that were already underway or represented long-term year-over-year improvements rather than recent intervention effects.
This creates a methodological problem for assessing whether federal interventions actually work. Rigorous evaluation would require:
- Establishing baseline trends before intervention
- Controlling for seasonal variation in crime rates
- Using appropriate comparison periods (before/after, not year-over-year)
- Accounting for regression to the mean (extremely high crime rates often decline naturally)
- Controlling for other variables that might explain changes
Neither Trump’s Memphis nor New Orleans claims meet these standards. The Memphis figure exaggerates specific crime category reductions while ignoring pre-existing trends. The New Orleans claim fundamentally misrepresents both the timeline and the measurement period of the statistic cited.
References:
ABC News. (2025, November 24). Thousands of arrests by Trump’s task force in Memphis strain crowded jail and courts. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/thousands-arrests-trumps-crime-fighting-task-force-memphis-127814251
The Washington Post. (2025, November 12). Crime dropped after Trump sent officers to Memphis. Not everyone is happy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/11/12/memphis-crime-trump-task-force/
Daily Caller. (2025, November 7). EXCLUSIVE: Trump admin executes massive crime crackdown in Memphis. https://dailycaller.com/2025/11/07/donald-trump-memphis-tennessee-crackdown-crime-data-national-guard/
Council on Criminal Justice. (2025). Crime in Memphis: What you need to know. https://counciloncj.org/crime-in-memphis-what-you-need-to-know/
Axios. (2025, September 3). Trump sets New Orleans as next federal crime target, not Chicago. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/03/trump-law-enforcement-chicago-new-orleans
NBC News. (2025, December 2). Trump says National Guard will be sent to New Orleans ‘in a couple of weeks’. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-says-national-guard-will-sent-new-orleans-couple-weeks-rcna247081
CNN. (2025, September 4). New Orleans: Trump could send national guard to the first city in a Republican led-state where Trump militarizes police. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/us/new-orleans-trump-national-guard
Fox 8 Live. (2025, September 3). Trump floats idea of federal crime crackdown in New Orleans, citing Gov. Landry request. https://www.fox8live.com/2025/09/03/trump-floats-idea-federal-crime-crackdown-new-orleans-citing-gov-landry-request/