Fact Checking President Trump’s Inaugural Address

President Donald Trump outlined his vision for his second presidential term Monday in the longest inaugural speech by word count since Herbert Hoover’s address in 1929. However, Trump’s 2,885-word speech included claims that were inaccurate or misleading on immigration, energy and environmental policy, tariffs and international trade, and the Panama Canal. 

Claim: President Joe Biden administration granted ‘sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminal’ migrants.

Trump emphasized that immigration policy would look different under his administration than under Biden’s and, in doing so, made several claims about his predecessor’s approach to immigration. “[The Biden administration] fails to protect our magnificent law-abiding American citizens,” he said, “but provides sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions that have illegally entered our country from all over the world.”

This is missing context. While it is unclear what Trump specifically meant by “sanctuary and protection,” most policies responsible for aiding illegal immigrants were made at the local level, not the federal level. 

“Sanctuary cities, soft-on crime DAs that didn’t charge migrants (and thus didn’t make them removable), and free shelter for all,” Daniel Di Martino, a graduate fellow the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, told The Dispatch Fact Check. “At the federal level what Biden did was allow a large number of illegal immigrants that overwhelmed border patrol and led to the release of very dangerous people alongside the majority who are just seeking a better life.” According to DiMartino, the problem stems more from district attorneys who “refuse to charge [criminal illegal immigrants] or collect immigration data of criminals.” 

In fact, the Cato Institute’s David Bier found in April that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency was releasing fewer criminals under the Biden administration than was recorded under the first Trump administration. Though ICE did not publish data on criminal releases prior to 2019, the number of criminally convicted or criminally charged migrants released by ICE in 2019 (34,415 individuals) and 2020 (21,234) was greater than in any fiscal year under the Biden administration. “Except for his first quarter in office, Biden has released a lower percentage of those arrested than Trump did from October 2020 to December 2020, falling from 27 percent of arrests to 17 percent in the most recently available quarter,” Bier wrote. “This shows that falling releases are not just a consequence of falling arrests. In fact, in the most recent quarter available [October to December 2023], ICE arrested nearly 1,500 more people with pending criminal charges or criminal convictions than in the final quarter of the Trump administration.”

Claim: Trump will reinstate ‘Remain in Mexico’ immigration policy.

Trump said in his speech his administration would pursue reimplementing the Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, in which asylum-seekers awaiting U.S. immigration court proceedings must remain in Mexico and are given no authorized temporary access into U.S. territory. 

“[Remain in Mexico] will reduce the number of aliens taking advantage of U.S. law and discourage false asylum claims,” the first Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said of the policy when announced in January 2019. “Aliens will not be permitted to disappear into the U.S. before a court issues a final decision on whether they will be admitted and provided protection under U.S. law.” Per the DHS, the policy was designed to not only limit rates of illegal immigration but also make the process for hearing asylum claims more efficient. 

Biden suspended the “Remain in Mexico” policy for new asylum-seekers on his first day in office, though he reversed course and restarted the program later that year, due in part to a court ruling that found that he violated the Administrative Procedure Act in ending the program. In June 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration to end “Remain in Mexico” once again, ruling that the government’s revised method to shutter the program no longer violated federal law. 

Although the second Trump administration may indeed bring back “Remain in Mexico,” the president left out some context when he promised to reinstate the policy—that reinstatement requires Mexico’s approval. 

Mexican government officials agreed to the plan when first implemented under the Trump administration. The program’s brief return under the Biden administration was preceded by a similar but separate agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments. As The Morning Dispatch reported at the time,

Any such implementation, however, couldn’t begin until the United States secured the cooperation of the Mexican government. The two countries finally came to an agreement late last week. “For humanitarian reasons and on a temporary basis,” Mexico’s foreign ministry said, “the Government of Mexico has decided that it will not return to their home countries certain migrants who have an appointment to appear before an immigration judge in the United States to request asylum there.”

It’s not clear whether Mexico would go along with reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” program. In February 2023, Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs flat-out rejected any consideration of the program’s return. More recently, the department’s current secretary—Juan Ramón de la Fuente, who took office in October 2024—expressed opposition to bringing back “Remain in Mexico,” but  said, “If they reinstate it, this is something we don’t agree with. We have a different focus. We want to adjust it.”

Claim: Trump will end the Green New Deal and revoke the electric vehicle mandate.

The 47th president also pledged in his speech to repeal environmental regulations that he said would help unburden American automobile companies. 

“With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate,” Trump said, “saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers.”

The only problem is that two policies he promised to repeal—the Green New Deal and an electric vehicle mandate—were never implemented in the first place. While Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York introduced a Green New Deal bill in 2019—prior to the Biden presidency—it never even made it out of committee. 

Nor has the federal government imposed an electric vehicle mandate, per se. However, the Biden-led Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March announced new rules regulating emissions from new cars made between 2027 and 2032. While not requiring consumers and car manufacturers to produce or buy electric vehicles, the Biden administration “establishe[d] new, more stringent vehicle emissions standards for criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions” for new cars made after 2027, with the hope that those emission regulations would increase the market share of electric and hybrid vehicles in the automobile industry. 

On his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.” However, the order’s text laid out what specifically that entails:

 It is the policy of the United States: … to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;

The Biden administration’s regulations on emissions of new cars are likely to be scrapped under this order, as it can be perceived as “regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access”—the regulatory barrier being the emission standards applied to new vehicles—and also might be considered “government-imposed market distortions,” for it aims to increase the market share of electric vehicles in the auto industry, as the EPA’s projections demonstrate. 

Claim: Trump will institute tariffs ‘instead of taxing our citizens.’

Trump pledged an “overhaul of our trade system” that will accumulate revenue through taxing foreign countries rather than Americans. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” he declared

Trump is wrong that placing additional tariffs on foreign countries is an alternative to taxes paid by U.S. citizens. The definition of a tariff is a tax paid by those who import goods from foreign countries. Tariffs are an attempt to “protect American workers and families” by artificially inflating the price of foreign goods, making it more challenging for foreign producers to compete with American-based rivals. That artificial price increase aims to incentivize American consumers to buy American-made alternatives to foreign goods, but, if the foreign-made product remains as the consumer’s preference, it’s the American buyer stuck paying the added cost—not the foreign country. 

Moreover, revenue collected from tariffs is wholly insufficient to replace “taxes on Americans.” “Over the past 70 years, tariffs have never accounted for much more than 2% of total federal revenue,” stated a December report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. “In FY2024, for example, CBP collected $77 billion in tariffs, accounting for approximately 1.57% of total federal revenue.” While prior to the 20th century, tariff revenues consistently made up north of 50 percent of federal revenue—and even represented more than 90 percent of federal revenue in parts of the early 19th-century—that would not be attainable today because federal government spends more money than it did a century-plus ago. As federal spending increased, so did the amount of federal revenue collected—meaning tariffs comprised a smaller share of federal revenue primarily because federal revenue has increased over time. 

The Panama Canal.

Trump also made several false statements while claiming that he would seek to regain control of the Panama Canal. 

“American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form,” Trump said. “And that includes the United States Navy. And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama.” The president added, “And we’re taking it back.” Trump further claimed that “38,000 lives” were lost in the canal’s construction. 

Trump made several incorrect statements: U.S.-flagged ships—both commercial and naval—are not being “severely overcharged” or otherwise treated unfairly, China is not operating the canal, and “38,000 lives” overstates the actual worker death toll while the U.S. was constructing the passageway. 

The United States completed construction of the canal in 1914, bridging the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean. After France abandoned an attempt to build a canal through Panama in the late 19th century, the U.S. exercised control over the territory around where the canal runs in a 1903 treaty that former President Teddy Roosevelt forged with Panama. However, former President Jimmy Carter agreed in 1977 to return the canal to Panamanian jurisdiction in phases that ended with Panama taking full control of the canal in 1999. In return, Panama guaranteed the U.S. and all other nations neutral access to the canal. As outlined in the U.S.-Panama treaty, the canal “shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality, so that there will be no discrimination against any nation, or its citizens or subjects, concerning the conditions or charges of transit, or for any other reason.”

Panama continues to own the canal and the surrounding territory today, but claims that the central American nation treats U.S. commercial and naval vessels unfairly by overcharging them is false, and would be a clear violation of Panama’s pledge of neutrality. As the Dispatch Fact Check reported earlier this month,

The rates charged on ships passing through the Panama Canal are based on the type of ship making the trip and its size. According to the Wall Street Journal, tolls range from around $300,000 to $1 million per crossing and priority slots can be purchased via auction by ships with time-sensitive cargo. The Panama Canal is required to remain neutral and U.S. military vessels are not subject to higher rates than other vessels, however, American military ships are given priority access to the canal when available.

Panamanian officials appear absolute in their unwillingness to break their neutrality agreement. “Rules are rules and there are no exceptions,” Ricaurte Vásquez, the Panama Canal’s current head administrator, told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. “We cannot discriminate for the Chinese, or the Americans, or anyone else. This will violate the neutrality treaty, international law and it will lead to chaos.” 

Panama also continues to operate the canal—not China. When Panama obtained full control of the canal at the turn of the 21st-century, the country awarded a contract to a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based company Hutchinson-Whampoa—later renamed CK Hutchinson Holdings following a merger with another Hong Kong-based company—to operate two shipping ports located on both ends of the canal, essentially privatizing the ports that were formerly government-run. The company has no jurisdiction or control over the canal itself, as that authority is vested with a Panamanian government agency, the Panama Canal Authority. 

Lastly, 38,000 workers did not die while America constructed the Panama Canal. According to the Panama Canal Authority’s website, “5,609 lives were lost from disease and accidents during the American construction era,” per archived hospital records. When including estimates of worker deaths during the failed French construction of the canal, the combined death toll reaches about 25,000. “However, the true number will never be known, since the French only recorded the deaths that occurred in hospital,” the Panama Canal Authority added. 

Byron Breedlove, a senior managing editor at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s scientific journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases, cited similar figures in an August 2021 issue:

During the effort to build the canal in the 1880s, more than 22,000 workers from France died, many from malaria and yellow fever, before the etiologies of those tropical diseases were understood. Records indicate that during the period of US construction, more than 55,000 people were employed and an estimated 5,600 died of injury and disease. The death toll would have been higher without effective protocols to control vectorborne diseases, in effect a second “special wonder of the canal.”

If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.