Has the Washington Post updated its Trump claims database for the second term and what methodology would it use?
Executive summary
The Washington Post created an extensive database cataloguing President Donald Trump’s false or misleading statements during his 2017–2021 term, totaling 30,573 entries by the end of that presidency [1] [2]. Public reporting and the Fact Checker’s ongoing work show The Post continued to fact-check and publish new pieces about Trump after he left office [3] [4], but there is no clear source in the provided reporting that the Washington Post has formally “updated” that original presidential database as a distinct “second‑term” record in the way the first-term tally was maintained [5] [1].
1. What the original project was and how it closed out
The Fact Checker’s project began as a first‑100‑days effort, expanded into a daily tally and ultimately produced a four‑year catalog that the team said contained 30,573 false or misleading claims from Trump’s presidency, a total that the Post publicly reported when the administration ended [6] [1] [2].
2. Evidence The Post kept fact‑checking Trump after 2021, but not necessarily as a labeled “second‑term” database
The Washington Post continued publishing analyses of new claims by Trump and reflections on nearly a decade of fact‑checking into 2024, including longform pieces cataloguing “new” false claims at rallies and staff essays about lessons learned from years of covering him [3] [4]. Those outputs demonstrate ongoing fact‑checking activity, but the pieces in the search set do not document a separate “second‑term” counter or a public relaunch of the 2017–2021 database under that label [3] [4] [5].
3. How the Fact Checker built and maintained the original database — the likely methodology for any extension
Reporting on the original project lays out a reproducible, team‑based method: a small Fact Checker staff systematically monitored tweets, speeches and media appearances, each reporter taking assigned days to scan for candidate claims, then coding and publishing entries; many entries were short, produced rapidly, and the project used repeated‑claim identification and categorization by topic and source [7] [8] [9]. Academic work that used the database describes the Post’s variables — issue category, source (rally, tweet, interview, speech), date and other attributes — which researchers employed to link repetition with public misperceptions [10] [11].
4. Specific elements that any “second‑term” update would likely include
Based on the Post’s documented practice, an updated or extended database would almost certainly mirror the original schema: daily monitoring of public appearances and social posts, a three‑person or small team workflow to capture claims, coding for source and topic, and a counting mechanism that treats many repetitions as separate entries while noting repeats as such [7] [8] [11]. The Post’s prior approach balanced breadth — attempting to “evaluate all topics and claims” — with pragmatic editorial triage, meaning not every false claim becomes a long feature but is still logged [11] [7].
5. What’s missing from the public record and why that matters
None of the supplied reporting explicitly states that the Washington Post created a branded “second‑term” Trump claims database or reset the tallies under a new campaign phase; the available sources only show continued fact‑checking and thematic follow‑ups after 2021 [3] [4]. That absence does not prove the Post hasn’t been logging post‑2021 claims internally, but the public evidence needed to confirm a formal, public second‑term update — such as an announced relaunch or a new cumulative total appended to the original dataset — is not present in the material provided [5] [1].
6. Competing interpretations and editorial incentives
The Post has an institutional incentive to keep a running public ledger when a subject’s statements have historic salience, as with Trump, and scholars have treated the 2017–2021 dataset as a research resource [10] [2]. Critics who question fact‑checker scope and selection point to sampling and scaling limits — academic cross‑checks note that different organizations’ breadth varies and that methodology drives which statements are captured [11]. The Washington Post’s stated practice of relying on a mix of proactive monitoring and reader tips also creates potential selection biases worth bearing in mind [11] [7].
Conclusion
The Washington Post definitively compiled and published a comprehensive database of Trump’s false or misleading claims for his first term and continued to fact‑check his post‑presidential claims publicly, but the provided reporting does not document a formally labeled “second‑term” update or new cumulative public tally using the same database format [1] [3] [4]. If The Post were to extend that database as it originally operated, it would use the same small‑team, day‑by‑day monitoring, claim‑coding, and repetition‑tracking methodology already described in its own reporting and in external academic assessments [7] [8] [11].