The highly anticipated presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was a fiery and contentious affair, with both candidates making several claims and accusations throughout the 90-minute exchange.
9News Nigeria provides a detailed fact check of the key claims made by each candidate with facts and figures as it is evident that many of the key claims made by both candidates were either false, misleading, or required significant context to understand fully.
Trump’s assertions about immigrants eating pets, the severity of unemployment under his administration, and the scale of voter fraud in the 2020 election were all found to be unsupported by the available evidence. Harris also made some inaccurate statements, such as claiming Trump wants to confiscate guns and that there are no U.S. troops in active combat zones.
Overall, the debate highlighted the importance of fact-checking and scrutinizing the claims made by political candidates, especially on high-stakes issues like the economy, crime, and foreign policy. While both Trump and Harris sought to score political points, the facts show that the reality is often more nuanced and complex than the rhetoric used on the debate stage.
Donald Trump’s Claims
Claim: Immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are “eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of people that live there.”
Fact Check: This claim is false. There is no evidence to support Trump’s assertion that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio have been eating pets. According to city officials, there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.” This appears to be a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has promoted without any factual basis.
Claim: “Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.”
Fact Check: This claim made by Harris is false. At the end of Trump’s term in January 2021, the unemployment rate was 6.4%, which is significantly lower than the peak of 10% reached in October 2009 during the Great Recession. While the COVID-19 pandemic did lead to a sharp increase in unemployment, the rate has since fallen steadily and stood at 4.2% as of the most recent data in August 2024. So the unemployment situation under Trump was not the “worst since the Great Depression” as Harris claimed.
Claim: “We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums.”
Fact Check: This claim is exaggerated and not supported by the available data. While there have been around 10 million encounters with migrants crossing the U.S. border since January 2021, the data shows that only about 1% of those apprehended had previous criminal convictions. There are no publicly available figures on how many came directly from prisons, jails, or mental institutions, but the “millions” claimed by Trump is not accurate.
Claim: “If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban.”
Fact Check: Harris’s claim is misleading. Trump has denied that he would sign a national abortion ban if elected president, stating that he would leave limits on abortion access up to individual states to decide. While a document published by the right-wing Heritage Foundation did recommend limiting abortion access, Trump has distanced himself from that proposal, saying “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.”
Claim: “The worst inflation we’ve ever had” was under Biden.
Fact Check: This claim is false. While inflation did peak at 9.1% under President Biden in June 2022, this was not the “worst inflation we’ve ever had.” Inflation has been significantly higher at several other points in U.S. history, including in the early 1980s when it reached over 14%. Since its peak in 2022, inflation has dropped to 2.9% as of July 2024, though it remains a key issue for many voters.
Claim: Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports would result in a $4,000 per year cost for middle-class families.
Fact Check: This claim by Harris is partially accurate. Some economists have estimated that Trump’s proposed tariffs could cost middle-class families around $4,000 per year, based on analysis of the potential impact of increasing tariffs on all imported goods to 10-20% and on goods from China to 60%. However, other estimates are lower, with the Peterson Institute suggesting the impact would be closer to $1,700 or $2,500 per year depending on the tariff level. So while the $4,000 figure is within the range of estimates, it is on the higher end and may not fully reflect the range of economic analysis on this issue.
Claim: “Crime in Venezuela… is way down because they have taken their criminals off the streets and given them to her [Harris] to put into our country.”
Fact Check: This claim is false. There is no evidence that the Venezuelan government is sending criminals to the United States. While crime levels in Venezuela have declined in recent years, experts attribute this to the state of the economy, not any policy of exporting criminals. The Venezuelan government does not publish reliable crime data, but independent analysis indicates the reduction in violent deaths is due to fewer “crime opportunities” rather than any deliberate effort to send criminals abroad.
Claim: Trump’s election cases failed due to a lack of “standing” for the president.
Fact Check: This claim is false. The majority of the lawsuits brought by Trump and his supporters challenging the 2020 election results were rejected not due to a lack of standing, but rather because of a lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud. As the search results note, “Judges in Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania rejected the claims of widespread voter fraud. The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s appeal because of a lack of standing.” There is extensive evidence that the 2020 election was not marred by significant fraud.
Claim: “Migrant crime” is happening at “levels nobody thought possible.”
Fact Check: This claim is misleading. While Trump asserted that crime in the U.S. is “through the roof” due to “migrant crime,” the available data actually shows the opposite. According to the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, the rate of violent and property crimes dropped significantly in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023, with the overall violent crime rate falling by 15.2%. So the data does not support Trump’s assertion of a crime wave driven by migrants.
Kamala Harris’ Claims
Claim: Trump’s father was a “Marxist professor in economics” who “taught her well.”
Fact Check: This claim is false. According to interviews with three of Professor Donald Harris’ former students, who are now economists themselves, they disagreed with the characterization of Harris’ father as a “Marxist.” While Donald Harris did study Karl Marx’s economic philosophy, his students said he taught a range of economic philosophies and was not a Marxist himself. Harris has credited her mother as the primary parental influence in shaping her.
Claim: The U.S. left behind “$85 billion worth of brand-new, beautiful military equipment” in Afghanistan.
Fact Check: This claim is false. The $85 billion figure cited by Trump is a gross exaggeration. The actual value of U.S.-funded equipment that fell into Taliban hands when they retook power in 2021 is estimated to be around $7.12 billion, the condition of which was unknown. The U.S. military had removed or destroyed most of the major equipment it was using in Afghanistan in the months leading up to the withdrawal.
Claim: Trump “wants to confiscate your guns.”
Fact Check: This claim is false. Harris’s statement that Trump “wants to confiscate your guns” is not accurate. While Harris has advocated for certain gun safety measures, there is no evidence that Trump has proposed confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. In fact, Harris herself acknowledged that she and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz are both gun owners and are “not taking anybody’s guns away.”
Claim: Trump “lost manufacturing jobs.”
Fact Check: This claim needs context. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. had added around 500,000 manufacturing jobs during the Trump administration. However, by the time Trump left office, the U.S. had lost virtually all of those gains due to the economic impact of the pandemic. So while Trump did oversee a net loss of manufacturing jobs, this was largely a result of the broader economic disruption caused by the pandemic, rather than his policies alone.
Claim: If Trump were president, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now.”
Fact Check: This claim requires context. Harris suggested that Trump’s plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war would involve pushing Ukraine to hand over control of Crimea and the Donbas region to Russia, effectively formalizing Putin’s illegal gains. While the details of Trump’s purported plan are unclear, many have criticized such a deal as appeasement. However, it’s important to note that the U.S. and European governments have said Russia has shown no genuine interest in peace negotiations, regardless of who is president.
Claim: “There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.”
Fact Check: This claim is false. While the U.S. has not formally declared war in decades, American troops are currently serving in combat zones around the world, including in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and other parts of Africa, where they support local forces fighting terrorist groups. U.S. service members have been involved in recent operations and have suffered casualties in these regions.
Overall Candidate’s Performance Analysis
Harris Dominates the Debate
From the outset, it was clear that Vice President Harris had the upper hand in the debate. She quickly established her command of the stage, confidently addressing questions and deftly parrying attacks from Trump. Harris was able to effectively explain her policy positions, including her stance on fracking and her plans for tax breaks and a first-time homebuyer credit. In contrast, Trump struggled to articulate coherent policy proposals, often resorting to conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
One of the most notable moments came when Harris called out Trump’s business record, stating that he had “inherited $400 million on a silver platter and then filed for bankruptcy six times.” This line of attack seemed to rattle Trump, who was unable to mount a convincing defense.
Trump’s Incoherence and Lack of Substance According to Some Views
Throughout the debate, Trump’s performance was marked by a lack of substance and coherence. He wandered through a series of conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Haitian migrants were “eating the dogs” in Ohio. When pressed on specific policy issues, Trump often resorted to vague “concepts of a plan” rather than offering concrete proposals.
The moderators, David Muir and Lindsay Davis, were quick to fact-check Trump’s statements, highlighting the numerous falsehoods and exaggerations in his responses. This stood in stark contrast to the previous presidential debate between Trump and Biden, where the moderators largely left the fact-checking to the candidates.
Harris Presents a Calm, Presidential Demeanor
In contrast to Trump’s erratic performance, Harris maintained a calm and composed demeanor throughout the debate. She addressed the issues head-on, demonstrating a strong grasp of policy and a clear vision for the country’s future. This stood in stark contrast to Trump’s often-combative approach, which seemed to alienate both the audience and the moderators.
One of the most striking moments came when Harris chided Trump for being “fired by 81 million people” in the 2020 election and now being “confused” about the outcome. This line of attack effectively undermined Trump’s claims of election fraud and painted him as a sore loser.
The Aftermath and Reactions
In the aftermath of the debate, the reactions were swift and decisive. President Joe Biden, who was in New York City during the event, praised Harris’ performance, stating that “America got to see tonight the leader I’ve been proud to work alongside for three and a half years. Wasn’t even close.”
However, Trump’s team took a different approach, with the former president himself making the unusual move of going into the spin room to talk to reporters. This is typically a tactic employed by low-polling primary candidates who feel they didn’t receive enough attention during the debate, rather than a move made by a confident frontrunner.
Implications for the 2024 Election
The outcome of the Trump-Harris debate has significant implications for the 2024 presidential election. Harris’ strong performance has solidified her position as a formidable candidate, and her ability to effectively counter Trump’s attacks and falsehoods has raised questions about the former president’s viability as a contender.
Moreover, the debate has shone a spotlight on both candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, which could be a significant liability and substance in the eyes of voters. The fact-checking by 9News Nigeria editorials, CNN, and other media moderators has also highlighted the importance of holding candidates accountable for their statements, a trend that could continue in future debates.
As the 2024 election cycle unfolds, the results of this debate will undoubtedly shape the narrative and the strategies of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The American people will be watching closely, eager to see which candidate emerges as the true leader capable of addressing the pressing issues facing the nation.
The Impact and Global Effect of Emerging American President
The outcome of the US presidential elections can have significant implications for other parts of the world, especially in areas of geopolitical importance. The US, as a global superpower, plays a crucial role in shaping international affairs, and the policies and priorities of the US president can have far-reaching consequences for global stability, security, and economic cooperation.
For Europe, the election of a US president can have a profound impact on transatlantic relations and the security architecture of the continent. A president who is committed to strengthening NATO and supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as Vice President Kamala Harris, would be welcomed by European leaders. Conversely, a president who questions the value of NATO and seeks to accommodate Russia, like former President Donald Trump, would create uncertainty and weaken Europe’s security.
In Central and Eastern Europe, the US election outcome can influence the region’s domestic political dynamics, democratic development, and its standing within the transatlantic community. A Biden administration is expected to revive US engagement in the region, providing a boost to embattled democracies and putting pressure on illiberal actors. Conversely, a Trump re-election could embolden authoritarian tendencies and deepen the dilemma for countries caught between EU and US priorities.
On Africa, the impact of Donald Trump’s presidency will be complex, with both potential benefits and drawbacks. Economically, there are concerns that Trump’s “America First” approach could lead to a scaling back of U.S. economic engagement and investment in Africa. For example, the future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) – a key trade framework between the U.S. and Africa – is uncertain under Trump. There are fears he may see AGOA as an unfair “bad trade deal” rather than an economic development program.
However, the Trump administration will continue to implement many existing U.S. economic initiatives in Africa, such as the Prosper Africa program to boost U.S. business ties. And the bipartisan support in Congress for economic engagement with Africa may help maintain continuity in this area.
In terms of discouraging corruption in countries like Nigeria, Trump’s “America First” stance and skepticism of foreign aid could potentially put pressure on African leaders to be more accountable in how they use U.S. assistance. The Trump administration may be less willing to overlook corruption and human rights abuses in exchange for political alignment. This could embolden civil society and anti-corruption efforts across the continent.
At the same time, a more transactional U.S. approach under Trump could also lead to greater tolerance of corruption if it serves American interests. So the impact on corruption may be hard to predict, although Trump had been very vocal when it comes to criticizing African leaders.
Other potential benefits include continued U.S. support for peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and public health initiatives in Africa, which have bipartisan backing in Congress. And the Trump administration’s focus on great power competition with China could lead to renewed U.S. engagement to counter China’s growing influence in Africa.
Overall, the long-term impact of Trump’s presidency on Africa remains uncertain. Much will depend on how his “America First” agenda is implemented, the continued role of Congress, and the ability of capable U.S. officials to maintain constructive policies. But there are valid concerns about a potential scaling back of U.S. commitment to Africa’s development and stability.
More broadly, the US presidential election can shape the global balance of power, with implications for issues such as the US-China rivalry, climate change, and the future of the rules-based international order. The election of a president who prioritizes multilateralism and international cooperation, like Vice President Harris, could strengthen the collective ability to address these global challenges. Conversely, a president who favors unilateralism and transactional foreign policy, like former President Trump, could further undermine global governance and empower authoritarian actors.
By Obinna Ejianya (9News Nigeria – Melbourne, Australia)
