November 18 2015 fact check trump's statement today that we are producing numbers like we have never seen

1. A habits‑of‑statement problem: fact‑checkers’ cumulative verdict

Independent fact‑checking projects have spent years scrutinizing Trump’s claims and finding a high rate of error: PolitiFact says it has checked him more than 1,000 times with roughly 76% of statements rated on the false side, and its median ruling is “False,” indicating a persistent pattern rather than isolated slips ^[5]. That institutional record matters when evaluating generic boasts about unprecedented numbers: fact‑checkers treat such broad claims skeptically and demand specific, verifiable metrics ^[5].

2. Recent benchmark — the November 2025 “numbers” episode

In late 2025, Trump repeatedly cited large investment totals and other big economic figures on national television; CNN and other outlets found many of those numeric claims unsupported or exaggerated. For example, the recurring claim of “$17 trillion being invested in the United States right now” was flagged as fictional when compared to the White House’s own tally of major announcements near $8.9 trillion and further scrutiny of what counted as “investment” ^{[1] [2]}. FactCheck.org and other outlets also flagged other numeric distortions from the same interview ^[3].

3. Why broad, superlative claims are hard to verify

Phrases like “numbers like we have never seen” are inherently vague: they need a definable metric (GDP, jobs created, investment pledges, inflation rates, etc.), a time frame, and a data source. The fact‑checking community’s approach is to ask for those specifications before validating the claim; when Trump has supplied numbers, fact‑checkers often find them misstated, misattributed, or based on cherry‑picked or pledged (not realized) figures ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Evidence from the 2015 record — what we do know

The search results include broad compilations of Trump’s false or misleading statements dating back to his 2015 campaign launch, but they do not document the exact November 18, 2015 wording you quoted. Wikipedia’s long list of problematic 2015 claims catalogues multiple debunked anecdotes from that year, yet does not confirm your specific sentence ^[4]. PolitiFact’s archive likewise documents many 2015 falsehoods but does not appear to track that exact phrasing in the sources provided ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Competing perspectives and how outlets differ

Mainstream fact‑checkers such as CNN, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and others have converged on the conclusion that many of Trump’s high‑magnitude numeric claims are inaccurate or exaggerated; they cite different datasets and criteria but consistently call for precise sourcing ^{[1] [3] [5]}. Some partisan outlets or Trump allies sometimes repeat or defend those claims by citing alternative compilations or framing pledges as equivalent to realized investment — an approach fact‑checkers warn inflates the headline numbers ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Practical test for the 2015 statement

To substantiate “we are producing numbers like we have never seen” from November 18, 2015, one would need: the original transcript or video of that day; the specific metric claimed; the baseline period for comparison; and the authoritative data source (BLS, BEA, Commerce, White House releases, etc.). None of the supplied search results provide that transcript or the metric for the 2015 phrase; therefore we cannot verify or refute the line itself from the current reporting (not found in current reporting) ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

Given the documented pattern — many high‑profile numeric claims by Trump have been found false or exaggerated when checked against primary data — treat unsourced superlatives about “numbers like we have never seen” as claims that require concrete sourcing and independent verification ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. The specific November 18, 2015 wording you asked about is not present in the provided sources, so available reporting cannot confirm its accuracy (not found in current reporting) ^{[4] [5]}.