Is factually 100% correct?

1. What the fact-checkers examined and what they found

WichitaLiberty’s review of seven major claims from the November 16 gaggle concludes “none were accurate as stated,” identifying two claims as demonstrably false (grocery prices declining and Venezuela’s prison population), two as significantly exaggerated (immigration numbers and insurance stock performance), two as misleading because of omitted context (Thanksgiving meal prices and the “highest inflation” claim), and one as false about polling numbers ^[1]. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact independently examined related economic claims — for example, the assertion that $2,000 tariff-based dividend checks would be issued — and state flatly that no checks were being issued and that there was no finalized, congressional plan to authorize such payments ^[2]. PolitiFact’s reporting also finds that many grocery items had increased in price between late 2024 and late 2025, contradicting a claim of broad grocery-price declines ^[3].

2. Which specific claims are cited as false or misleading

Fact-checkers call out a mix of outright falsehoods and misleading representations: the claim that stimulus-like $2,000 checks from tariff revenues were being issued is refuted — FactCheck.org reports “No checks are being issued” and says experts doubt sufficient tariff revenue exists for such dividends without Congressional action ^[2]. WichitaLiberty lists grocery-price declines and an inflated insurance-stock gain as demonstrably false versus financial and commodity data ^[1]. PolitiFact’s review of a separate Trump interview likewise shows many grocery items rose in price between December 2024 and September 2025, undermining claims of broad grocery deflation ^[3].

3. Where the disagreements or limits in the reporting lie

The sources show consensus that particular numeric or categorical claims were incorrect, but they differ in emphasis and framing: WichitaLiberty stresses none of seven claims were accurate “as stated,” classifying several as exaggerated or misleading rather than uniformly fabricated ^[1]. MediaBiasFactCheck and aggregate outlets collect multiple fact-checks and sometimes critique how fact-checkers themselves are framed or rated, suggesting the public should be aware of fact-checkers’ own perspectives ^{[4] [5]}. The provided reporting does not contain every primary dataset (for example, the exact Treasury tariff-revenue calculations or insurer stock tickers), so the fact-check conclusions rely on cited data that the individual fact-checks examined — not on raw primary files in the search results ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Broader context and competing viewpoints

Fact-check organizations (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, WichitaLiberty) converge on the conclusion that several claims lack factual support, while outlets like MediaBiasFactCheck note the existence of debate over fact-checkers’ biases and advise readers to judge methodology themselves ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Independent analyses cited by fact-checkers (e.g., Wells Fargo analysis on Thanksgiving meal costs) show nuance: some items or chains might show price drops while broader baskets did not, which explains why a blanket claim of grocery deflation can be false or misleading even if some prices fell ^[1].

5. Bottom line for readers: can any examined claim be “100% correct”?

Based on the provided reporting, the examined high-profile claims are not “100% correct.” Multiple independent fact-checks show outright falsehoods, exaggerations, and omissions across the cited claims ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If you have a specific sentence or statistic you want checked to the word, provide it and the precise context; current sources address the major claims from the November 16 gaggle and related statements and conclude they do not hold up as stated ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations: available sources do not include the raw datasets fact-checkers used or every primary document (for example, Treasury internal tariff receipts), and some outlets critique fact-checkers themselves — so readers should weigh methodologies and consult primary sources where possible ^{[4] [1]}.