INFLATION M AVERAGE MONTHLY INFLATION UNDER BIDEN 5.0% AVERAGE MONTHLY INFLATION UNDER TRUMP 2.0%
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The original statement claims that average monthly inflation under Biden was 5.0% while under Trump it was 2.0%. However, the analyses provided do not contain sufficient data to verify these specific numerical claims about average monthly inflation rates for either presidency.
What the sources do reveal is a more nuanced picture of inflation trends. The House Budget Committee analysis indicates that prices are up 15.5 percent under Biden and notes that inflation remains over three times higher than just a couple years ago [1]. This suggests significant inflationary pressure during Biden's tenure, though it doesn't provide the monthly breakdown claimed in the original statement.
The CNN fact-check reveals important context about the starting point of Biden's presidency, noting that the actual year-over-year inflation rate in January 2021 was about 1.4%, contradicting Biden's own false claim that inflation was 9% when he took office [2]. A third source confirms this trajectory, documenting that inflation rose from 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.3% in April 2022, showing a dramatic upward trend during the majority of Biden's presidency [3].
Notably, none of the analyses provide comprehensive data about Trump-era inflation rates, making it impossible to verify the claimed 2.0% average monthly inflation figure from the original statement.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original statement presents a stark numerical comparison but lacks crucial contextual information that would help readers understand the broader economic picture. Several key elements are missing:
Timing and External Factors: The analyses reveal that Biden inherited a relatively low inflation environment, with rates at just 1.4% when he took office [2]. This missing context is significant because it suggests that any comparison should account for the different economic conditions each president faced upon entering office.
Methodology Questions: The original statement doesn't specify how these "average monthly inflation" figures were calculated. Were they simple arithmetic averages? Were they weighted by time periods? The lack of methodological transparency makes verification difficult.
Economic Context: None of the sources address external factors that might have influenced inflation during either presidency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, monetary policy decisions, or global economic conditions. This broader economic context is essential for understanding whether presidential policies directly caused inflation changes.
Duration Considerations: The analyses don't clarify the time periods being compared. Trump served a full four-year term, while the data available appears to cover only a portion of Biden's presidency, potentially creating an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Alternative Metrics: The sources focus on year-over-year inflation rates and cumulative price increases rather than monthly averages, suggesting there may be different ways to measure and present inflation data that could yield different conclusions.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement exhibits several characteristics that raise concerns about accuracy and potential bias:
Unsubstantiated Claims: The specific figures of 5.0% and 2.0% for average monthly inflation cannot be verified through the provided analyses. The House Budget Committee source, while critical of Biden's economic record, doesn't provide these exact monthly averages [1]. This suggests the original statement may be presenting unsourced or calculated figures without proper attribution.
Selective Framing: The statement presents inflation data in a way that maximizes the apparent difference between the two presidencies. By using "average monthly inflation" rather than more commonly reported annual rates, the statement may be cherry-picking a metric that produces more dramatic-sounding numbers.
Lack of Context: The statement fails to acknowledge that Biden began his presidency during a period of historically low inflation (1.4%) and doesn't account for the unprecedented economic circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath [2] [3].
Potential Political Motivation: The format and presentation of the data suggests this may be politically motivated content designed to criticize Biden's economic performance while favorably portraying Trump's record, rather than providing objective economic analysis.
Missing Source Attribution: The original statement provides no sources or methodology for its claims, which is a red flag for potentially misleading information, especially when dealing with complex economic data that requires careful analysis and context.