Did Trump Undermine Senate Border Deal? Fact-Check Reveals Shocking Details

Vice President Kamala Harris accuses former President Donald Trump of derailing a crucial Senate border security deal, sparking a heated debate on immigration policy and political maneuvering.

At a Glance

Harris claims Trump intervened to kill a bipartisan border security bill
The accusation stems from the first presidential debate for the 2024 election
Harris alleges Trump prefers to run on immigration issues rather than solve them
Fact-checkers have identified numerous false or misleading claims from both candidates
The debate highlights the complexities of immigration policy and political rhetoric

Harris Accuses Trump of Sabotaging Border Deal

During the first presidential debate for the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris leveled a serious accusation against former President Donald Trump, claiming he deliberately sabotaged a bipartisan Senate border security deal. The debate, hosted by ABC News at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, brought the issue of immigration to the forefront of national discourse.

Harris didn’t mince words when addressing the failed border security legislation. She stated, “That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings, but you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress and said, ‘Kill the bill.'”

Political Motivations and Immigration Rhetoric

Harris went further, suggesting that Trump’s actions were politically motivated. “You know why? Because he’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem,” she asserted. This claim underscores the complex interplay between policy-making and political strategy, especially concerning hot-button issues like immigration.

“[W]hen you look at what she’s done to our country, and when you look at these millions (and) millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly, where it’s, I believe 21 million people, not the 15 that people that say. And I think it’s a lot higher than the 21. That’s bigger than New York state. Pouring in. And just look at what they’re doing to our country,” said Trump.

Trump’s response during the debate included claims about the scale of immigration, which fact-checkers have disputed. The former president’s rhetoric on immigration has been a cornerstone of his political messaging, often emphasizing what he perceives as the negative impacts of current policies.

Fact-Checking the Claims

The debate was not without controversy, as fact-checkers from various news organizations identified numerous false or misleading claims from both candidates. Trump’s statements about immigration numbers and their effects were particularly scrutinized. For instance, his claim about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, was found to be false: “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs—the people that came in—they’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”

Harris’s claims were not immune to fact-checking either. Her statement about manufacturing job creation during her vice presidency was found to be misleading, as it didn’t provide full context about job losses and gains over time.

The Broader Immigration Debate

The exchange between Harris and Trump highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing immigration and border security. While Harris accused Trump of obstructing progress, Trump’s campaign has consistently criticized the current administration’s handling of border issues. The debate underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to immigration that balances security concerns with humanitarian considerations.

As the 2024 election approaches, it’s clear that immigration will remain a central and contentious issue. Voters will need to carefully consider the claims and policy proposals of both candidates to make informed decisions about the future of U.S. immigration policy.