Factually reports bullshit
Executive summary
Reporting and fact‑checking outlets find multiple high‑profile claims labeled misleading, exaggerated, or false: WichitaLiberty’s review says seven major claims from Trump’s Nov. 16, 2025 gaggle “none were accurate as stated,” with two demonstrably false and others exaggerated or misleading [1]. The New York Times and FactCheck.org likewise document misleading statements about prices, Thanksgiving costs and proposed $2,000 tariff checks, noting differences in baskets, missing items, and lack of any approved payment plan [2] [3].
1. What “Factually reports bullshit” appears to mean — and who is saying it
The phrase in your query echoes the blunt assessments contained in recent fact checks: WichitaLiberty’s fact‑check concluded none of seven examined claims were accurate as stated and labels two as demonstrably false, two as significantly exaggerated and two as misleading due to omitted context [1]. The New York Times reaches similar conclusions about statements on affordability and prices, describing them as misleading and documenting how different item selections and weights affect comparisons [2]. FactCheck.org similarly debunks concrete policy promises (for example, that $2,000 tariff‑based checks would be issued) by noting no checks are actually being issued and a formal plan has not been approved [3].
2. The money and prices claims: different baskets and cherry‑picking matter
Journalists and fact‑checkers point out that claims about falling grocery or Thanksgiving costs depend on which items, brands and sizes are compared. The NYT shows the 2025 Thanksgiving basket differs from 2024’s — it includes different items and sizes (e.g., a 13.5‑lb turkey at $0.97/lb versus a range in 2024) and omits nine prior items while adding four new ones, which skews year‑over‑year comparisons [2]. WichitaLiberty also flagged grocery‑price claims as among the demonstrably false or misleading items it examined [1]. The reporting shows the substance of the claim changes when you control for a consistent basket of goods [2].
3. Immigration and other numeric claims were exaggerated, per fact checks
WichitaLiberty and other fact checks find immigration totals cited during the gaggle were significantly exaggerated; Migration Policy Institute analysis and other fact‑checks estimate substantially fewer parolees and entrants than the “20 or 25 million” type claims, with their summaries placing actual releases, parolees and estimated gotaways in the roughly 4–5.8 million range through particular cutoffs — far below the large asserted totals [1]. WichitaLiberty frames that as a significant overstatement among the seven claims it evaluated [1].
4. Policy promises: reporting shows no enacted payments or approved plans
FactCheck.org examined the headline promise of $2,000 “dividend” checks funded by tariffs and concluded no such checks are being issued and no formal, approved plan exists; fiscal experts also doubt sufficient tariff revenue is available for that program as described [3]. That means reporting correctly frames such statements as aspirational policy proposals rather than implemented benefits [3].
5. How the checks differ: false, exaggerated, and misleading — distinctions matter
WichitaLiberty categorizes errors across three classes: demonstrably false (directly contradicted by data), significantly exaggerated (numbers inflated beyond credible estimates), and misleading by omission (true facts presented without context that changes meaning) — and found examples of each among seven claims it audited [1]. The NYT’s analysis reinforces the “misleading by omission” diagnosis for price claims because changing basket composition materially affects the conclusion [2]. That taxonomy helps readers evaluate whether a claim is simply sloppy, intentionally misleading, or plainly false.
6. Limitations, competing interpretations and what’s not said
Available sources show consistent fact‑checking results on specific claims but do not cover broader motivations or internal intent behind the statements; WichitaLiberty, NYT and FactCheck.org focus on verifiable numbers and comparisons, not on attributing political motive [1] [2] [3]. If you want evaluations about intent, legislative feasibility beyond these fact checks, or newer data beyond the cited articles, those topics are not found in the current reporting and would require additional sources [1] [2] [3].
7. Takeaway for readers: verify the apples‑to‑apples comparison
When public figures cite statistics about prices, immigration totals or planned payments, reporters advise checking the underlying methodology — are baskets comparable, are timeframes consistent, and is a policy actually enacted or merely proposed? WichitaLiberty, the New York Times and FactCheck.org all demonstrate that headline assertions can be false, exaggerated or misleading depending on those choices [1] [2] [3]. Use their documented examples as templates for scrutinizing similar claims going forward [1] [2] [3].