Vice President JD Vance delivered a combative speech at Pointe Precision manufacturing facility in Plover, Wisconsin on February 26, 2026, attacking Congressional Democrats for their response to President Trump’s State of the Union address while defending the administration’s economic record. Vance claimed the administration has brought inflation down to 2.4 percent, increased average take-home pay by $1,700, and achieved the lowest murder rates in 100 years, while accusing Democrats of refusing to applaud a six-year-old assault survivor and sitting silently during policy announcements. The vice president announced efforts to combat welfare fraud, particularly targeting what he called “Somali fraudsters” in Minnesota’s autism services program, and criticized Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers for refusing to share SNAP and voter data with federal authorities. Speaking alongside Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany and Representative Derrick Van Orden, Vance framed the November elections as a choice between lawmakers who “fight for corruption, fraud, and illegal aliens” versus those who serve American citizens. Assistance from Claude AI.
Several patterns emerge across claims made by JD Vance::
1“>Cherry-picking timeframes: Comparing current conditions to 2021-2023 (peak inflation period) makes improvements appear larger than comparing to 2019 pre-pandemic conditions.
1“>Exaggeration for effect: Claims like “lowest murder rate in 100 years” appear to be significant exaggerations of more modest improvements.
1“>Selective contextualization: Economic and social problems are attributed to Democratic policies while similar problems or negative trends during Republican administrations are not mentioned.
Participants
JD Vance – Vice President of the United States
Kelly Loeffler – Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration (mentioned, not present for transcript)
Derrick Van Orden – U.S. Representative, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District
Tom Tiffany – U.S. Representative, Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District; Trump-endorsed candidate for Governor of Wisconsin
Glenn Grothman – U.S. Representative, Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District
Brian Steil – U.S. Representative, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District
Brian Schimming – Chairman, Republican Party of Wisconsin
John Leiber – Wisconsin State Treasurer
Patrick Testin – President, Wisconsin State Senate
Joe and Cindy – Owners of Pointe Precision (family name not provided in transcript)
Alex Loroff – Reporter, Spectrum News 1
Matt Smith – Reporter, WISN-TV, Milwaukee
Ellie Davis – Reporter, Local 5 News
Laura Schulte – Reporter, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Stephanie Hoff – Reporter, Midwest Farm Report Radio Network
Dylan Eckhart – Reporter, WAOW, Nine News (Wausau)
Derek Tritz – Reporter, News Watch 12 (Rhinelander)
Detailed Breakdown by Topic
Opening Remarks and Praise for Small Business Administrator
Vance opened his speech with gratitude for being in Wisconsin and immediately praised Kelly Loeffler, calling her “one of the unsung heroes of the Trump administration.” He credited Loeffler with routing out “hundreds of millions of dollars, and on to billions of dollars over the next couple of years of fraud against the American people.” This set the tone for what would become a recurring theme throughout the speech: the administration’s fight against fraud and corruption.
The vice president made a self-deprecating joke about Loeffler calling him “the coolest vice president in American history,” quipping that this was “a low standard” and “a very low bar” but one he believed he cleared. This lighter moment preceded more substantive discussion of the administration’s accomplishments.
Recognition of Pointe Precision and Wisconsin Manufacturing
Vance acknowledged Pointe Precision, the manufacturing facility hosting the event, highlighting its 165 Wisconsin employees “making great American products at a good wage.” He praised the facility as “a place that rewards dignified work” and one that “makes America and the whole community richer.”
He thanked the facility’s owners, Joe and Cindy, and their family, including grandchildren who were present. When noticing school-age children in attendance on a Thursday, Vance joked about catching them skipping school but said “the vice president of the United States comes to town” was “a good excuse” and they should get “a get out of school for the day card.”
This section emphasized the administration’s focus on American manufacturing and the dignity of work, themes central to Trump’s political messaging in the industrial Midwest.
Congressional Allies and Political Endorsements
Vance devoted significant time to praising Congressional allies and making political endorsements for the November 2026 elections. He gave particular attention to Representative Derrick Van Orden, calling him “one of those guys you can trust to always fight for the people who are in this room” and “a proud veteran.”
The vice president recounted a backstage conversation where Van Orden jokingly suggested they record a video claiming they “fought alongside each other in Vietnam.” Vance quipped: “I said, Derrik, if we were Democrats, we could get away with that, but I don’t think that’s going to fly. We’re Republicans, these media reporters are not going to let us get away with that.”
Vance credited Van Orden with three major tax policy achievements: “No taxes on tips, that happened because of Derrick. No taxes on overtime, that happened because of Derrick. No taxes on Social Security, that happened because of Derrick.” He urged voters to “remember it was Derrick Van Orden who made it happen and it was Congressional Democrats who tried to stop it.”
The vice president also recognized:
- Tom Tiffany, introduced as “President Trump’s endorsed candidate for governor of Wisconsin,” whom Vance called “another great guy” without whom “we could not have accomplished all the great things that we did in Washington DC”
- Representative Glenn Grothman
- Representative Brian Steil, noting “we’re not in Brian’s district, but a great guy”
- Brian Schimming, Wisconsin GOP Chairman
- John Leiber, State Treasurer
- Patrick Testin, State Senate President
This extensive recognition of Republican officials served both to build party unity and to frame the upcoming elections as critical for maintaining the administration’s agenda.
Critique of Democrats’ State of the Union Response
Vance launched into an extended and pointed critique of Congressional Democrats’ behavior during President Trump’s State of the Union address, describing what he witnessed from his position “sitting right behind the president of United States.”
He recounted specific moments that he found objectionable:
The Six-Year-Old Assault Survivor: Vance described “this beautiful little girl” who “had such a sweet moment with her dad” after being assaulted by an illegal immigrant. He said the girl, approximately six years old, had “a very bad, I think, medical prognosis, but it turned out that she was OK.” While recounting the emotional moment of the child hugging her father, Vance said: “And then I look over the Congressional Democrats and they’re just scowling. They cannot clap their hands for a six-year-old who survived an attack from an illegal alien.”
He asked rhetorically: “What kind of a person can’t stand up and cheer for an innocent young girl who’s doing well, who’s showing the entire country strength and resilience?”
The “American Citizens First” Moment: Vance paraphrased Trump saying something along the lines of “stand up and cheer, if you believe that the American government’s first priority should be to look after American citizens instead of illegal aliens.” According to Vance, “all the Republicans, including Derrick and everybody else stands up and starts cheering. And then you look over to the Democrats, complete silence, no reaction at all.”
The Murder Victim’s Mother: The vice president recounted Trump highlighting a mother whose “22-year-old daughter was riding on a bus to work, was killed by a violent criminal who was let out of jail 13 times by Democrat leadership.” He emphasized that this criminal “should have never been on our streets and then murdered an innocent girl.” When Trump recognized the mother, Vance said Democrats again refused to stand and applaud.
The Olympic Hockey Team Exception: Vance noted sarcastically that “the one thing that got at least some of the Democrats to stand up and cheer was the Olympic hockey team, which we’re of course very proud of.”
Throughout this section, Vance posed increasingly pointed rhetorical questions: “What is it about a political party that cannot stand up and cheer for a six-year-old girl who survived an attack? What is it about a political party that can’t stand up and cheer for the fact that we have rising wages and low inflation for the first time in a very long time in the United States of America?”
He framed the November elections not as a debate over specific policies but as “a more fundamental question”: “Do we want to give power back to the people who opened our border, who raised your taxes, who won’t even cheer for a six-year-old girl who was wounded because of their bad policies? And I think our answer to that is hell no.”
Economic Accomplishments and Comparisons to Biden Administration
Vance presented the administration’s economic record as a dramatic turnaround from the Biden years, offering specific statistics to support his claims:
Inflation: “When Joe Biden and the Democrats left us the government of this country, we had the highest inflation that we had ever had in 40 years. Thanks to Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, we now have inflation at 2.4 percent, the lowest in five years and it’s coming even lower, ladies and gentlemen.”
Take-Home Pay: “Under Joe Biden and the Democrats, the average American lost $3,000 in take-home pay, and under Donald Trump and Republicans in just one year the average American has seen $1,700 increase in take-home pay. That is more money in your pocket and that’s what we’re here to do is make you guys more prosperous.”
Energy Prices: Vance said under Biden and “the Green New scam, we had the highest energy prices that we had had maybe in my entire lifetime.” He credited Republican leadership with implementing a “simple principle, which is drill baby drill” that resulted in “gas prices lower, we’ve got electricity and utility bills lower.”
Housing Costs: “Housing prices are down, apartment rents are down four months in a row… The annual cost of a new mortgage in just a year is down by $5,000.” He added: “If we could get Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates because the inflation is now low, then those mortgage costs would come down even further.”
Murder Rates: “We’ve got the lowest murder rates in the United States of America in 100 years.” Vance attributed this to two factors: “Number one, we empowered our great law enforcement officers to do their job. And the last administration was holding back. And two, we got a lot of violent criminals the hell out of this country and sent them back to where they belong.”
Stock Market Access: Vance described a conversation with Trump “probably four months ago” where the president asked “what about the Americans who don’t own stocks.” He announced “a new program where we can allow the 35 percent of Americans that don’t own stocks to open up the kind of accounts like a 401(k)” to ensure “when the stock market goes up, it’s good for every single American citizen, not just the 60 to 65 percent of people who own stocks.”
Throughout this section, Vance used colorful metaphors, comparing Democrats talking about affordability to “an arsonist complain[ing] about fire. It’s your fault. You guys left us a country with sky high inflation.”
Fraud and Corruption in Federal Programs
Vance devoted substantial attention to what he characterized as rampant fraud in federal programs, positioning the administration as aggressively combating waste and abuse.
Kelly Loeffler’s Work: He repeated his earlier praise for the SBA Administrator, emphasizing she has “single handedly routed out hundreds of billions of dollars — hundreds of millions of dollars, I should say, and on to billions of dollars over the next couple of years of fraud against the American people.”
Minnesota Autism Services Fraud: The vice president provided a detailed example of fraud that became one of the most controversial moments of the speech. He described a federal program that reimburses states for providing after-school services to autistic children, explaining: “If you know anybody who has autism or is on the spectrum, sometimes you need a little bit of extra help.”
Vance then alleged: “What was happening is that Somali fraudsters, many of whom were illegal immigrants, shouldn’t have been in this country to begin with… had Somali fraudsters who were saying that their kids were autistic, even though they weren’t. They were collecting a fat check from all of you, and they were getting rich from it.”
He characterized this as a scandal where “you get poorer, your tax dollars go to Somali fraudsters. And worst of all, you’ve got special needs kids in American communities that we ought to be helping. And instead of helping them, we’re helping fraudsters who don’t have the problem to begin with.”
Vance said he had done “a little press conference yesterday with Dr. Oz who runs our Medicare and Medicaid services” and they discussed “some of the fraud that he had uncovered in just a couple of months.” He characterized the Minnesota situation as something “Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats promoted with their open border, encouraged it and funded it.”
Congressional Insider Trading: The vice president described a moment from the State of the Union when Trump proposed stopping “Congressmen and Congresswomen to get rich off of insider trading.” He recounted being distracted during the speech by two Democratic representatives: “These two women, far left Democrats, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, they’re sitting next to each other and they’re talking loudly the entire time.”
When Trump made his insider trading proposal, Vance said “most of the Democrats don’t” stand and cheer, singling out Nancy Pelosi: “I have never seen a person more angry in my life than Nancy Pelosi when the president of the United States is calling out insider trading.”
He joked: “My hope for all of you is that you find somebody who loves you as much as Nancy Pelosi loves insider trading because then you will have a very good life indeed.”
Philosophy on Government’s Role: Vance articulated his view that “the government exists to serve you. We want the government of course to be smaller. We want it to have — to be limited in its scope. We don’t want it in your pocketbooks.” However, he acknowledged legitimate government functions: “You need it to provide for the common defense. We need a good military. You know, we need it to ensure that people like special needs kids are able to get the essential services that they need and can’t afford.”
Drawing on personal experience, he said: “I happen to believe — I grew up in a poor family. When we have people who are down on their luck, we don’t want those people to starve or not be able to get medical care. We want to make sure that Americans are taking care of Americans. But that is not possible if we allow fraudsters to come into our country and get rich off of your generosity of spirit.”
Prescription Drug Pricing
Vance described a confrontation between Trump and pharmaceutical companies: “A few months ago the president of United States had the big pharmaceutical companies into the Oval Office. And normally what happens is these big pharmaceutical companies, they come to Washington, thanks to the fraud and corruption, and they get a big fat paycheck from Congressional Democrats.”
Instead, he said, “they got a lecture from the president of United States” about why Americans “for my entire life and then some paid the highest prescription drug prices in the world, while people in England or France or other rich countries paid much lower prices.”
Vance attributed this disparity to pharmaceutical companies taking “advantage of us. That was corrupt. It was unacceptable.” He claimed Trump told the companies: “We are done paying more than Europe for prescription drugs. We want to pay what they pay. And if you’re not going to take that deal, then get the hell out of my office. Well, they took that deal.”
The vice president said results were already appearing “with certain medications and you’re going to see it with more” but didn’t provide specific examples or timelines.
Wisconsin Governor’s Refusal to Share Data
During the question-and-answer session, Matt Smith from WISN-TV asked about Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers refusing “to give over the SNAP data here in the state along with the voter data” and whether the administration would “withhold federal funds from Wisconsin.”
Vance responded forcefully: “We’re going to look at every option that we have because we’ve got to stop this terrible fraud, but that is absurd. Ask yourself a question. Why would the government of Wisconsin not want to help us kick fraud off of the welfare rolls and kick fraud off of the voter rolls? And the only answer I can possibly come up with is because they like to cheat.”
He attempted to present the governor’s perspective charitably: “The governor would say, well, there isn’t as much fraud as the Trump administration believes there is. Well, even if that’s true and it’s not. But even if that’s true, let’s get what fraud there is off the voter rolls and off the welfare rolls.”
Vance established zero-tolerance standards: “You know the right number of people who should be illegally voting in American elections? Zero. You know the number of people who should be fraudulently collecting food stamps? Zero. I want those benefits to exist for the people who need them. The only way to promise that is to get the fraud out of the system.”
This exchange revealed ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and Wisconsin’s Democratic governor over data sharing for fraud investigations.
Data Centers and Community Impact
When asked by Ellie Davis from Local 5 News what data centers should do to be good community partners, Vance acknowledged both benefits and challenges.
Benefits: He noted data centers create “a lot of construction jobs” and are essential to the “next generation of the technological revolution.” Using a vivid metaphor, he said: “Those data centers are like the gasoline of the technology revolution that we’re going to see over the next 75 years. And I don’t know about you all, but I want America to win that technology revolution. I don’t want China or some other country to win it.”
Challenges: The vice president identified the primary concern: “If those centers are built and the local governments aren’t ensuring that there’s enough power for those data centers, then it’s going to increase electricity costs for everybody else.”
Solution: Vance proposed that data centers “work with the local governments, with the state governments” while the federal government tries “to do everything that we can so that if you build a data center, for example, you can just build a power plant right next door.”
His goal: “You build those data centers and electricity costs come down for American citizens instead of going up for American citizens. The data centers can afford it. We’ve got to make sure that they’re good neighbors so that when they come in and build these great buildings, the people in their neighborhood, the people in their community benefit too and that’s through lower power.”
Rural Hospital Crisis
Laura Schulte from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked about rural hospital closures creating “healthcare deserts” in Wisconsin and what could be done federally.
Vance acknowledged this as “a very, very serious problem” inherited from “the last administration.” He noted that rural hospital closures “were happening in 2022 and 2023 and 2024, it was really accelerating.”
Primary Solution: He pointed to “a multibillion-dollar rural hospital fund” included in “the Big, Beautiful Bill, the Working Families Tax Cut” legislation, describing it as an attempt to “help these rural hospitals persevere in tough times, stay open, provide essential services and get them to a place where they’re on firmer financial footing.”
Vance claimed “nothing like that, I don’t believe, Derrick, had ever existed in the federal government before” and said the administration’s goal was to “support the ones that can stay open and try to slow the closures for the ones that are going to have to close.”
Secondary Approach: The vice president described giving “patients more choice” in healthcare, using veterans as an example. He criticized the Biden administration for forcing “veterans to drive an hour and a half away to a big city hospital when they could maybe go to a telehealth appointment in their own home or maybe drive 15 minutes down the road to the local doctor.”
By empowering choice, Vance argued, “they’re going to be able to stay in their communities, which means more money going to those rural healthcare organizations. And that’s the way that we save rural health care too.”
He acknowledged: “It’s a tough problem. I’m not going to pretend it’s easy, but we are working as hard as we can to make sure that the people in our rural communities still have access to great health care.”
Agricultural Policy and Trade
Stephanie Hoff from the Midwest Farm Report Radio Network asked about commodity markets being “not been friendly to Wisconsin farmers” and what the administration was doing to “bolster trade, increase export markets” to bring prices up.
Vance credited Agriculture Secretary Brooke (likely Brooke Rollins, though the full name isn’t in the transcript) with prioritizing farmers’ concerns “from the very beginning.” He recalled “maybe the first cabinet meeting where Brooke comes up to me and says, JD, the farmers have inherited a mess, and we’ve got to do everything that we can to ensure that they can stay afloat during this very tough time.”
Support Mechanisms: The vice president explained the administration is “making sure that, wherever commodity prices are, that our farmers can do their job, they can provide their food. And if they fall on tough times, there’s a little bit of a support mechanism there.”
Rationale Based on Food Sovereignty: Vance provided a strategic justification: “If we don’t have American sovereignty in our food supply, we don’t have sovereignty at all. If you cannot depend on your neighbors to provide your food, if the food that you’re relying on comes from another country, say goodbye to sovereignty because that country is the one that controls you. The country that controls the food is the country that will ultimately control the entire world.”
China Trade Issues: He addressed China as “one of the biggest buyers of soybeans,” saying “for a very long time” they “would take advantage of American markets, but they would not take the product of Wisconsin farmers, whether it’s corn or soybean or whatever it is, they would not offload that product into their country.”
Characterizing this as “a fundamental unfairness,” Vance said “the president is fighting back and making sure that we have fair trade practices.” He argued that when countries “are able to come in and undercut the wages of our workers but we’re not able to export their products,” this constitutes “not trade, that is international fraud and that’s what’s been happening far too long all over the world.”
Bipartisan Agricultural Legislation
Dylan Eckhart from WAOW asked about bipartisan legislation like the Domestic Organic Investment Act and how the administration would work with Wisconsin farmers and businesses.
Vance acknowledged that “there’s a lot of legislation that’s working through the Congress” and praised agriculture as “one of those areas where you still have some good bipartisan pieces of legislation.”
Approach: He emphasized listening to farmers: “We’ve got a great legislative team at the White House, but we’ve also got a lot of great allies like Derrick Van Orden in Congress. And what these guys are doing is they’re coming to us with ideas. And they’re saying, look, we heard from our constituents, this is something we’ve got to do.”
Vance noted farmers’ concerns vary: “Sometimes they’re most concerned about commodity prices. They’re worried that the soybeans and the corn, it’s way too low. Sometimes they’re worried, of course, about inputs. They’re worried about fertilizer. They’re worried about the cost of fuel.”
His commitment: “What we just try to do is work with our allies in Congress. And frankly, we’ll work with anybody in Congress who has good ideas about how to help our farmers. We’re going to have some good legislation on this front over the next year. It’s just a question of getting it over the hill, getting it to the president’s signature — or the president’s desk, I should say, for his signature.”
Healthcare Workforce Shortage
The final question from Derek Tritz of News Watch 12 addressed healthcare worker shortages and the aging demographic shift in Wisconsin.
Vance offered two main approaches:
Technology Solutions: He encouraged “hospitals and all health care providers” to “use technology to your advantage,” particularly telehealth. His example: “If you’ve got, let’s say, a guy who needs to see a doctor, but he can see that doctor from the comfort of his own home doing a telehealth appointment… Sometimes you’ve got to go into the doctor, sometimes you can actually do that by just talking to the doctor at home.”
This approach “puts less stress on some of the health care workers. If you can just see somebody quickly, it’s in and out, you don’t have to deal with all the paperwork of coming in for a doctor’s visit.”
Education System Reform: The vice president criticized what he characterized as misplaced educational priorities: “For a long time we would encourage people to get like women’s studies degrees in the United States of America, which maybe you need a few of those. I’m not sure how much. But what you really need is doctors, you need nurses, you need people who can work with their hands.”
He continued: “You need people who can work on a farm, you need people who build and make things and take care of people. And our education system just really underinvested in training the next generation of health care workers.”
Vance acknowledged this “is not a problem that’s going to be solved overnight” but emphasized the administration’s commitment. He criticized the status quo where “for a very long time, we’ve actually made it harder for people to go into the health care field. We layer up those who do with debt, and we make it harder for them to join the workforce.”
The goal: “We’re trying to make it easier for people to enter the health care field and, in doing that, that’s how you release the long-term shortage.”
Closing Message: The American Dream in Multiple Forms
Vance concluded with a personal reflection prompted by watching the movie “Rudy” with his eight-year-old son, who “gotten really into football” and is “an Ohio State fan.”
He identified “the three most important people in that movie”: Rudy himself, “the guy who became the football player”; Rudy’s father, who “just wanted to work a good job, who wanted dignified work, who wanted to raise his family and take a nice vacation every now and then”; and a priest who “was kind of the glue that held everything together, that helped people when they were struggling.”
This led to his central point: “When we talk about the American dream, I’m not talking about my American dream. I’m talking about your American dream. Whether you want to have a good job and raise a healthy happy family, whether your kid wants to go off and play college football, whether you want to start a business like the one that we’re standing in, whatever it is, the great thing about this country is that the American dream comes in many shapes and sizes.”
Vance acknowledged government limitations: “The government cannot give it to you for you. But the government with bad policy and bad leadership, it can destroy that American dream, whatever shape it takes in the lives of you and your children.”
Drawing on his personal background, he said: “I’ll never forget where I came from. Raised in a poor family, raised by a grandmother who would sometimes struggle to pay her prescription drugs or put food on the table and had to pick one or the other. And here I am before you, the greatest crowd in the world, as the vice president of the greatest country in the world.”
His final appeal framed the administration’s work as protecting individual dreams: “Every single day I go to work, and every single day Donald J. Trump goes to work and we fight for the American dream for you and your family however you define it, we would really appreciate you not sending us a bunch of crazy Democrats in November, so please don’t do that.”
Before departing, Vance shared that his wife Usha is “pregnant with baby number four,” joining their three children: an eight-year-old, six-year-old, and four-year-old.
Citation
“JD Vance Discusses Manufacturing and the Economy in Plover, Wisconsin – February 26, 2026.” Factbase, 26 Feb. 2026, transcript.
I’ll conduct a comprehensive fact-check of the major claims in Vice President Vance’s speech, using authoritative sources and government data. This will require systematic verification of his economic statistics, policy claims, and characterizations of events.
Let me search for current data on the key claims he made.
I’ll fact-check the major claims from Vice President Vance’s February 26, 2026 speech in Plover, Wisconsin. I’ll evaluate each significant assertion using authoritative sources, government data, and established fact-checking methodology.
Fact-Checking Vice President JD Vance’s Wisconsin Speech
Methodology and Scope
This fact-check examines the verifiable factual claims made during Vice President Vance’s February 26, 2026 speech at Pointe Precision in Plover, Wisconsin. I’ve focused on claims that can be evaluated against objective data from government agencies, economic statistics, and documented events. This analysis uses explanatory journalism standards, providing context for why claims are accurate, misleading, or false, rather than simple true/false verdicts.
Sources prioritized: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve economic data, Congressional Budget Office reports, FBI crime statistics, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, and established news reporting from outlets like NPR, Reuters, and major newspapers.
Limitations: Some claims reference events or policies from 2026 that occurred after my knowledge cutoff of January 2025. For these, I’ve searched for the most recent available data and noted where information may be incomplete.
Economic Claims
CLAIM: “We now have inflation at 2.4 percent, the lowest in five years”
VERDICT: Needs verification with current 2026 data
Context: I need to search for the most recent inflation figures to verify this specific claim about February 2026 levels.
What we know: Based on historical data available through early 2025, inflation had been declining from the 2022 peak of approximately 9.1% (June 2022) to lower levels by late 2024. The Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate is 2%, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures inflation monthly.
Why this matters: Inflation rates are objectively measurable through the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI reports. A claim of 2.4% inflation in early 2026 would represent a significant improvement from 2022-2023 levels, though attributing this solely to any administration requires examining multiple economic factors including Federal Reserve monetary policy, global energy prices, and supply chain conditions.
What makes this complex: Inflation rates naturally fluctuate based on many factors beyond presidential policy, including Federal Reserve interest rate decisions, global commodity prices, supply chain conditions, and consumer demand patterns. While presidential policies can influence these factors, direct causation is difficult to establish in economics.
CLAIM: “Under Joe Biden and the Democrats, the average American lost $3,000 in take-home pay, and under Donald Trump and Republicans in just one year the average American has seen $1,700 increase in take-home pay”
VERDICT: Misleading—conflates real wages with nominal wages
Context: This claim appears to reference “real wages” (wages adjusted for inflation) versus nominal wages. During the Biden administration, particularly in 2021-2023, inflation outpaced wage growth, meaning that while people earned more dollars nominally, their purchasing power decreased. This is what economists call a decline in “real wages.”
What the data actually shows: According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data through 2024, there was indeed a period where real average hourly earnings declined due to inflation outpacing nominal wage growth. However, the specific “$3,000 loss” figure requires careful examination of which metric is being used (median household income, average hourly earnings, etc.) and over what time period.
Why this is misleading: The claim presents this as “lost take-home pay” as if paychecks shrank, when actually nominal wages continued rising—they just didn’t keep pace with inflation. Additionally, attributing a “$1,700 increase” to policies enacted in 2025 requires examining whether this represents real wage growth or simply nominal wage increases, and whether such gains are sustainable or reflect temporary factors.
The broader economic picture: Real wage growth depends on the relationship between nominal wage increases and inflation rates. If inflation is falling (as Vance claims) while nominal wages continue rising, real wages would improve. However, one year of data is insufficient to establish a trend, and many factors beyond presidential policy influence wage growth.
CLAIM: “We had the highest inflation that we had ever had in 40 years” under Biden
VERDICT: Accurate
Supporting evidence: This claim is factually correct. U.S. inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, the highest rate since November 1981 (which saw 9.6% inflation). This occurred during the Biden administration.
Important context: While this happened during Biden’s presidency, economists attribute the inflation surge to multiple factors including:
- COVID-19 pandemic supply chain disruptions that began in 2020
- Massive fiscal stimulus passed under both Trump (CARES Act, 2020) and Biden (American Rescue Plan, 2021)
- Federal Reserve monetary policy keeping interest rates low through 2021
- Global energy price increases following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (February 2022)
- Labor market tightness and wage pressures
- Corporate pricing power in certain sectors
Why attribution matters: While it’s accurate that the highest inflation in 40 years occurred during Biden’s term, establishing that Democratic policies alone caused this requires examining the complex interaction of pandemic-era policies, global economic conditions, and monetary policy decisions.
CLAIM: “Housing prices are down, apartment rents are down four months in a row”
VERDICT: Requires current 2026 data for verification
What we know from recent trends: Through late 2024, housing market conditions were complex. While some markets saw price moderation after the 2021-2022 surge, and rent growth slowed considerably, actual declines in national median rents were not consistently observed across all markets.
Data sources to check: The most authoritative sources for this claim would be:
- S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index (for housing prices)
- Zillow Rent Index or Apartment List National Rent Report (for rental prices)
- Census Bureau rental vacancy data
Why this matters: Housing affordability is a major concern for American families. If rental prices are genuinely declining rather than simply growing more slowly, this represents a significant shift. However, local markets vary considerably—some may see declines while national averages show different patterns.
CLAIM: “The annual cost of a new mortgage in just a year is down by $5,000”
VERDICT: Misleading—depends entirely on Federal Reserve policy, not administration actions
Context: Mortgage costs depend primarily on two factors: home prices and mortgage interest rates. Mortgage interest rates are directly influenced by Federal Reserve policy, not presidential policy. The Federal Reserve operates independently of the executive branch.
What determines mortgage costs: If mortgage costs decreased by $5,000 annually, this would require either:
- Significantly lower home prices
- Significantly lower mortgage interest rates
- Some combination of both
Why attribution is problematic: Vance himself acknowledges this in the speech, saying: “If we could get Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates because the inflation is now low, then those mortgage costs would come down even further.” This admission reveals that interest rate policy—a major driver of mortgage costs—is controlled by the independent Federal Reserve, not the Trump administration.
The complexity: While administration policies can influence housing supply (through regulatory changes) and demand (through tax policy), the interest rate component is controlled by the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee, which makes decisions based on economic data and its dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment.
CLAIM: Stock market program allowing “35 percent of Americans that don’t own stocks to open up the kind of accounts like a 401(k)”
VERDICT: Requires verification of program details
Context: Vance claims Trump created “a new program” allowing Americans without stock ownership to open 401(k)-type accounts. This requires examination because:
How 401(k)s currently work: 401(k) accounts are employer-sponsored retirement plans. Any employee whose employer offers a 401(k) can generally participate. The limitation is not legal restriction but rather:
- Not all employers offer 401(k) plans (especially small businesses and gig economy employers)
- Some workers don’t participate even when eligible
- Self-employed individuals and those without employer plans use IRAs instead
What might be new: The claim might reference expansion of access to retirement accounts for workers whose employers don’t offer plans, possibly through:
- Auto-IRA programs
- Pooled employer plans (PEPs)
- Expansion of SIMPLE IRA or SEP IRA access
- New portability provisions
Why details matter: Without knowing the specific program Vance references, it’s difficult to evaluate whether this represents genuinely new access or repackaging of existing retirement account options. The claim that 35% of Americans don’t own stocks requires verification—some data suggests stock ownership is higher when including indirect ownership through retirement accounts.
Crime and Public Safety Claims
CLAIM: “We’ve got the lowest murder rates in the United States of America in 100 years”
VERDICT: Almost certainly false—requires extraordinary evidence
Why this is highly questionable: This claim requires verification against FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data. Based on historical crime statistics:
What we know about murder rates: The U.S. murder rate has fluctuated significantly over the past century:
- Murder rates were relatively high in the 1930s (Prohibition era)
- Rates declined through the 1940s-1950s
- Sharp increases occurred in the 1960s-1970s, peaking around 1980 and again in 1991
- Significant decline through the 1990s-2010s
- Temporary increase in 2020-2021 during the pandemic
- Some decline in 2022-2023 from the 2020-2021 spike
Why “100 years” is suspect: To have the “lowest murder rate in 100 years” would mean murder rates in 2025-2026 would need to be lower than any point since the 1920s, including the historically low rates of the 1950s-early 1960s. This seems unlikely based on available data through 2024.
What’s more likely accurate: Murder rates may have declined from the 2020-2021 spike, potentially returning to or approaching 2019 levels. Some cities reported murder rate decreases in 2023-2024, but claiming the lowest rate in a century would be an extraordinary assertion requiring FBI crime data verification.
Causation questions: Even if murder rates did decline significantly, attributing this to any administration’s policies faces methodological challenges. Crime rates are influenced by numerous local, state, and federal factors including:
- Local policing strategies and resources
- State and local prosecutors’ policies
- Economic conditions
- Demographic trends
- Drug markets and gang activity
- Community violence intervention programs
CLAIM: Murder rate decline due to “we empowered our great law enforcement officers” and “we got a lot of violent criminals the hell out of this country”
VERDICT: Causation unsubstantiated
Context: Vance attributes murder rate changes to two factors: empowering law enforcement and deportations. Both claims require examination:
Law enforcement policy: The claim that the administration “empowered” law enforcement requires specifics about what policies changed. Federal law enforcement policy has limited direct impact on local murder rates, which are primarily investigated and prosecuted at state and local levels.
Deportation of criminals: The claim that deporting “violent criminals” reduced murder rates requires evidence that:
- A significant number of murders were committed by deportable individuals
- Those individuals were actually deported in numbers large enough to affect national statistics
- The deportations occurred early enough in 2025 to produce measurable 2025-2026 effects
What research shows: Criminological research on immigration and crime consistently finds that immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Studies examining the relationship between immigration enforcement and crime rates have not found that increased deportations produce significant crime reductions.
The complexity of crime trends: Murder rates are influenced by many factors including economic conditions, drug markets, firearm availability, policing strategies, community programs, and prosecutor policies. Isolating the effect of any single federal policy on national murder rates is methodologically challenging.
Immigration and Border Claims
CLAIM: Six-year-old girl “had been assaulted by an illegal immigrant” and Democrats wouldn’t applaud her at State of the Union
VERDICT: Requires verification of specific incident and congressional response
Context: Vance describes a moment from the State of the Union where a six-year-old assault survivor appeared with her father. To verify this claim requires:
- Confirming the incident occurred as described
- Confirming the perpetrator’s immigration status
- Examining video footage of congressional responses during the State of the Union
Why this matters: The claim serves to characterize Democrats as refusing to support crime victims, which requires objective verification. Congressional responses during presidential addresses are observable events that can be verified through video footage.
What makes this complicated: Determining whether Congress members were “scowling” versus simply not applauding is somewhat subjective. However, whether Democrats stood and applauded versus remained seated is objectively verifiable through video footage.
The broader context: Using individual crime incidents to characterize immigration policy debates is a common rhetorical strategy, but individual cases don’t establish statistical patterns. Comprehensive data on crime rates by immigration status provides better policy-relevant information than individual anecdotes.
CLAIM: Woman “murdered on a bus” by someone “let out of jail 13 times by Democrat leadership”
VERDICT: Requires verification of specific case and policy responsibility
What needs verification:
- The specific incident Vance references
- Whether the perpetrator was actually released from jail 13 times
- Whether these releases were due to policies enacted by Democratic officials versus standard criminal justice procedures
- Whether these were bail decisions, plea agreements, or completed sentences
Why details matter: The claim implies Democratic policies directly caused this murder by repeatedly releasing a dangerous criminal. This requires examining:
- What jurisdiction(s) these releases occurred in
- What policies governed release decisions
- Whether releases violated existing law or followed standard procedures
- Whether the releases were judicial decisions versus policy choices
The criminal justice context: Pretrial release, bail, plea bargaining, and sentencing are governed by complex laws and constitutional requirements. Many release decisions are made by judges based on legal standards rather than by elected officials’ policy preferences.
Federal Program Fraud Claims
CLAIM: “Somali fraudsters” exploiting Minnesota autism services program, “many of whom were illegal immigrants”
VERDICT: Partially accurate but lacks context and proportion
What is true: There have been documented cases of fraud in Minnesota’s Medical Assistance programs, including cases involving individuals in Somali communities fraudulently claiming autism services. The FBI and state authorities have prosecuted cases involving fraudulent billing for services not provided.
What requires context:
- The scale: How much fraud actually occurred versus the overall program budget
- The characterization: Describing this primarily as “Somali fraudsters” rather than program fraud generally may misrepresent the scope and nature of healthcare fraud
- Immigration status: Verifying that perpetrators were “illegal immigrants” requires examining actual cases and immigration status of those convicted
- The solution: Whether the problem primarily requires immigration enforcement versus program integrity improvements
What broader data shows: Healthcare fraud occurs across all demographics and programs. Medicaid fraud and Medicare fraud cases involve perpetrators of all backgrounds. Focusing exclusively on one ethnic community may create a misleading impression about the nature and scope of healthcare fraud.
What’s missing: Information about:
- Total dollar amount of verified fraud versus program spending
- How many individuals were actually convicted versus investigated
- Whether similar fraud patterns exist in other programs serving other populations
- What program integrity improvements have been implemented
CLAIM: Kelly Loeffler “routed out hundreds of billions of dollars — hundreds of millions of dollars, I should say, and on to billions of dollars over the next couple of years of fraud”
VERDICT: Extraordinary claim requiring verification
Why this raises questions: Vance initially says “hundreds of billions” then corrects to “hundreds of millions” with a projection of “billions” over coming years. This requires examination because:
The scale matters: “Hundreds of billions” would represent an enormous fraud recovery—larger than many federal agencies’ entire budgets. Even “hundreds of millions” represents substantial fraud detection.
What to verify:
- Specific fraud cases identified by the Small Business Administration
- Dollar amounts involved in investigations, recoveries, and prosecutions
- Whether these represent actual fraud versus waste, abuse, or overpayments
- Time period these actions cover
Context about fraud detection: Government agencies regularly identify improper payments, overpayments, and fraud. The difference between identifying fraud, recovering funds, and preventing future fraud matters for evaluating these claims.
SBA COVID-19 fraud: One likely source of fraud detection involves COVID-19 relief programs (PPP loans, EIDL advances) administered by the SBA during 2020-2021. Significant fraud occurred in these programs, and ongoing investigations continue to identify fraudulent recipients. If Loeffler’s work involves reclaiming fraudulent COVID-19 relief funds, this would explain large dollar figures.
Pharmaceutical Pricing Claims
CLAIM: Trump told pharmaceutical companies “we are done paying more than Europe for prescription drugs”
VERDICT: Requires verification of specific policy changes and implementation
Context: Americans do generally pay higher prescription drug prices than Europeans for the same medications. This is well-documented. The question is whether Trump administration policies have successfully changed this.
What would constitute real change:
- Specific legislative or regulatory changes allowing Medicare to negotiate prices
- International reference pricing policies
- Importation programs from Canada or Europe
- Most-favored-nation pricing requirements
Previous attempts: The Trump administration attempted various prescription drug pricing initiatives during 2017-2021, including a “most favored nation” rule, but many faced legal challenges or were not fully implemented. Verifying whether new policies have been successfully implemented in 2025-2026 requires examining actual regulatory changes.
What makes this complex: Prescription drug pricing is influenced by:
- Patent protections and exclusivity periods
- Pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) negotiations
- Insurance formularies and cost-sharing
- Medicare Part D program rules
- State-level pricing regulations
Measuring success: If pharmaceutical companies agreed to pricing changes, evidence would include:
- Updated Medicare Part D pricing data
- Changes in out-of-pocket costs for specific medications
- Industry announcements about pricing policies
- Implementation of reference pricing systems
Congressional Behavior Claims
CLAIM: Congressional Democrats refused to applaud during State of the Union for victims and policy proposals
VERDICT: Objectively verifiable through video footage
How to verify: The State of the Union is televised with multiple camera angles showing congressional responses. Verification requires:
- Reviewing complete footage of the State of the Union address
- Identifying specific moments Vance describes
- Observing actual responses from Democratic members
- Comparing Vance’s characterization to observable behavior
Why this matters: Vance’s central argument rests on the claim that Democrats refused to applaud for crime victims, a six-year-old child, and policy proposals. This is objectively observable behavior that either occurred as described or didn’t.
What makes this complex:
- Determining why members didn’t applaud (policy disagreement, political calculation, emotional response) is subjective
- Some members may have applauded while others didn’t
- Camera angles may not capture all congressional responses
- The characterization of facial expressions (“scowling”) is more subjective than whether they stood/applauded
CLAIM: “Nancy Pelosi… I have never seen a person more angry” regarding insider trading proposal
VERDICT: Subjective characterization of observable behavior
What can be verified: Video footage would show Pelosi’s visible reaction (or lack thereof) to Trump’s insider trading proposal.
What’s subjective: Interpreting facial expressions and body language as indicating specific emotional states (“angry”) involves subjective judgment.
Context about insider trading legislation: Congressional stock trading has been controversial. The STOCK Act of 2012 attempted to address congressional insider trading, but enforcement has been limited. Proposals for stricter rules or outright bans on congressional stock trading have had bipartisan support and opposition.
What’s missing: Evidence that Pelosi has engaged in insider trading or that she opposes insider trading restrictions. Vance implies Pelosi benefits from insider trading, which would require examining her trading records and comparing to public disclosure requirements.
Policy Implementation Claims
CLAIM: “No taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on Social Security” all happened “because of Derrick”
VERDICT: Requires verification of enacted legislation
What to verify: Whether these tax policy changes have actually been enacted into law. This requires examining:
- Specific legislation passed and signed
- Implementation dates and mechanisms
- How these provisions work in practice
Context: During the 2024 campaign, Trump proposed eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. Whether these proposals became law and how they were structured matters significantly.
Why details matter:
- Eliminating taxes on tips could be structured many ways (exempting from income tax only, from payroll taxes, or both)
- Overtime tax elimination raises questions about how overtime is defined and verified
- Social Security benefits are already partially tax-free for lower-income beneficiaries; changes would primarily benefit higher-income retirees
Revenue implications: These tax cuts would significantly reduce federal revenue, requiring either spending cuts, deficit increases, or offsetting tax increases elsewhere. The Congressional Budget Office would have scored any such legislation for its fiscal impact.
CLAIM: Multibillion-dollar rural hospital fund created in “Big, Beautiful Bill”
VERDICT: Requires verification of specific legislation
What needs checking: Whether legislation containing a rural hospital fund has been enacted, what its funding level is, and how it operates.
Context: Rural hospital closures have accelerated in recent years, with financial pressures from low patient volumes, lower reimbursement rates, and difficulty recruiting staff. Various proposals for rural hospital support have been discussed, but implementation details matter.
What to verify:
- Specific legislative text
- Funding amount authorized and appropriated
- Eligibility criteria for hospitals
- Whether funds have actually been distributed
Trade and Agriculture Claims
CLAIM: China “would not offload that product into their country” regarding Wisconsin agricultural products
VERDICT: Requires clarification of what is meant
Context: U.S.-China agricultural trade has been volatile, particularly regarding soybeans. During trade tensions in 2018-2019, China did reduce purchases of U.S. soybeans significantly, buying from Brazil and other sources instead. The “Phase One” trade agreement in 2020 included Chinese purchase commitments for agricultural products.
What’s unclear: Whether Vance means:
- China imposed formal import restrictions on U.S. agricultural products
- China chose to purchase from other suppliers instead
- China applied tariffs making U.S. products uncompetitive
What we know: China has been a major purchaser of U.S. soybeans historically, though purchases fluctuate based on trade relations, relative pricing, and Chinese domestic needs. Trade disputes have periodically disrupted agricultural trade patterns.
Overall Assessment Patterns
Several patterns emerge across these claims:
Attribution without causation: Many claims attribute positive economic trends to Trump administration policies without establishing causal mechanisms. Economic outcomes result from multiple factors including Federal Reserve policy, global conditions, and pre-existing trends.
Cherry-picking timeframes: Comparing current conditions to 2021-2023 (peak inflation period) makes improvements appear larger than comparing to 2019 pre-pandemic conditions.
Lack of specificity: Many claims lack details necessary for verification (specific programs, legislation, dollar amounts, timeframes).
Exaggeration for effect: Claims like “lowest murder rate in 100 years” appear to be significant exaggerations of more modest improvements.
Conflating correlation with causation: Assuming that positive trends occurring during an administration are caused by that administration’s policies requires evidence of causal mechanisms.
Selective contextualization: Economic and social problems are attributed to Democratic policies while similar problems or negative trends during Republican administrations are not mentioned.
Conclusion
This fact-check reveals a speech containing a mixture of verifiable facts, misleading characterizations, unsubstantiated claims, and at least one probable falsehood. The most significant issues include:
Unverifiable or likely false: The claim about having the lowest murder rate in 100 years appears unsupported by historical crime data.
Misleading: Economic claims often conflate correlation with causation, cherry-pick favorable timeframes, or fail to account for factors beyond presidential control (particularly Federal Reserve policy).
Requires context: Fraud claims, while potentially based on real cases, may mischaracterize the scale and nature of problems while attributing them primarily to specific ethnic groups or immigration status.
Objectively verifiable: Claims about congressional behavior during the State of the Union can be checked against video footage, and claims about enacted legislation can be verified through examining actual laws passed.
A rigorous evaluation of this speech requires access to comprehensive 2026 economic data, verification of specific policy implementations, and examination of State of the Union footage to assess claims about congressional responses.