'They're Leaving!': Trump Swipes At Mamdani, Claims His Policies Are Driving New Yorkers From City
Credibility score: 45/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "'They're Leaving!': Trump Swipes At Mamdani, Claims His Policies Are Driving New Yorkers From City" and rated it 45/100 for credibility (a BS score of 55/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-27. Its weakest claim — "Setting up a false premise about Obama and 'Mondani' not running in 2020." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as missing context. 22 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 22 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 22 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting up a false premise about Obama and 'Mondani' not running in 2020. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:00
Talking about 2020 in 2026 like it's a current problem — that ship sailed, chief. 🚢
Why this score: The speaker is discussing the 2020 election in what is clearly a current context (June 2026). This creates a temporal disconnect, making it seem like a current political issue when it's long past. Also, 'Mondani' is likely a mispronunciation of a different name, adding to the confusion.
Original quote: “Democrats have a problem on their hands now that, you know, Obama and Mondani, they're two true leaders, neither of them can run for president in 2020.”
Claiming tax hikes are 'forcing' New Yorkers to leave for Florida. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:20
Declaring people are 'forced' to leave and 'most' are going to specific Florida cities with zero data. That's a lot of certainty for a hunch. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker asserts with high confidence that tax increases are 'forcing' people to leave New York for specific locations in Florida (Palm Beach and Miami). While some people do move for tax reasons, the claim of being 'forced' and the specific destination for 'most' lacks supporting evidence or data in the statement. It's a strong assertion without the backing to match.
Original quote: “you can't raise taxes on people where you force them to leave your state or your city, and they're leaving and they're going to Florida. Most of them are going down to Palm Beach and Miami.”
Claiming a specific group pays 90% of taxes without evidence. Confidence Mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Said '90% of your taxes' like it's a known fact, but where's the data, chief? That's a bold number to just drop 💀
Why this score: The speaker states a precise, high percentage (90%) for tax contributions from a specific group without providing any source or evidence to back it up. This is a common tactic to make a claim sound authoritative and impactful, even if it's unsubstantiated.
Original quote: “They're just leaving, and they pay 90% of your taxes.”
Claiming a specific group pays 90% of taxes without evidence. Confidence Mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Said '90% of your taxes' like it's a known fact, but where's the data, chief? That's a bold number to just drop 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts a precise, high percentage (90%) of tax contribution from a specific group without providing any source or evidence to back up this significant claim. It's presented as a definitive fact, but the confidence doesn't match the lack of supporting data.
Original quote: “They're just leaving, and they pay 90% of your taxes.”
Claiming the people leaving pay 90% of taxes, a bold number with no source. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Pulled '90% of your taxes' out of thin air like it's a known fact. That's a huge number to just drop. 💀
Why this score: The speaker states with high confidence that the people leaving pay '90% of your taxes' without providing any evidence or source for this specific, very high figure. This is a classic move to inflate the perceived impact of their departure.
Original quote: “They're just leaving, and they pay 90% of your taxes.”
Claims the people leaving pay 90% of taxes, a bold number with no source 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
That '90%' number just dropped like it's common knowledge — zero receipts given. Wild confidence for a huge stat. 😬
Why this score: The speaker states with high certainty that a specific group pays 90% of taxes, but provides no evidence or source for this significant claim. It's a precise number that feels authoritative but lacks any backing.
Original quote: “They're just leaving, and they pay 90% of your taxes.”
Claiming a specific, high percentage of taxes paid by those leaving. That's a bold number with no backup. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:30
Said '90% of your taxes' like it's a known fact, but where's the data, chief? 💀
Why this score: The speaker states a very specific and high percentage (90%) of taxes are paid by the group allegedly leaving. This number is presented with absolute certainty but without any supporting evidence or source, making it a confident assertion without the necessary backing.
Original quote: “They're just leaving, and they pay 90% of your taxes.”
Painting a grim picture of inheritance tax, focusing on the emotional impact. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:45
Went straight for the 'loving father/mother' and 'beautiful child' to make a tax sound like a personal tragedy. 😭
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('loving father or mother,' 'beautiful child') to describe the impact of inheritance taxes. This framing is designed to evoke sympathy and outrage, making the tax policy seem particularly cruel, rather than discussing the policy's specifics or broader economic context.
Original quote: “You can't put a state taxes on that are so high that when a loving father or mother dies and they leave it to their beautiful child, the child is supposed to pay 50% tax.”
Exaggerating inheritance tax with an emotional appeal. Emotional Button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:45
Went straight for the 'loving father/mother' and 'beautiful child' to make a tax sound extra evil. Classic emotional button push 😭
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('loving father or mother,' 'beautiful child') to frame the inheritance tax as an unfair burden, rather than discussing the actual tax rates or policies objectively. This aims to elicit sympathy and outrage, distracting from a factual discussion of tax law.
Original quote: “You can't put a state taxes on that are so high that when a loving father or mother dies and they leave it to their beautiful child, the child is supposed to pay 50% tax.”
The 'loving father' scenario with a 50% inheritance tax — a classic emotional button 😭 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:45
The 'loving father' and 'beautiful child' bit is pure emotional leverage for the tax claim. Pulling heartstrings to make a point. 💔
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('loving father or mother,' 'beautiful child') to describe a hypothetical inheritance tax scenario. This framing is designed to evoke sympathy and outrage, rather than presenting a neutral analysis of tax policy. The specific 50% tax rate is also presented without context or nuance.
Original quote: “You can't put a state taxes on that are so high that when a loving father or mother dies and they leave it to their beautiful child, the child is supposed to pay 50% tax.”
Exaggerating inheritance tax to 50% for a 'beautiful child'. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:45
Went straight for the 'loving father' and 'beautiful child' to make a tax sound extra evil. Classic emotional manipulation. 😭
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('loving father or mother,' 'beautiful child') to describe a scenario where an inheritance is taxed at '50%.' This framing is designed to evoke sympathy and outrage, rather than presenting a factual, nuanced discussion of inheritance tax rates, which vary significantly by state and federal law, and often have exemptions.
Original quote: “You can't put a state taxes on that are so high that when a loving father or mother dies and they leave it to their beautiful child, the child is supposed to pay 50% tax.”
Exaggerating inheritance tax to 50% on top of federal. Emotional Button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:49
Went straight for the 'loving father' and 'beautiful child' to make that 50% tax hit harder. Classic emotional manipulation 😭
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('loving father or mother,' 'beautiful child') to frame the inheritance tax as an unfair burden, specifically claiming a 50% tax rate. This is designed to evoke sympathy and outrage, rather than present a clear, factual analysis of inheritance tax laws, which are far more complex and rarely hit 50% on top of federal for most estates.
Original quote: “that when a loving father or mother dies and they leave it to their beautiful child, the child is supposed to pay 50% tax.”
Exaggerating the tax burden to claim people are left with 'nothing,' then calling it 'common sense.' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:57
Claimed 'you're leaving him nothing' after taxes, then tried to pass it off as 'common sense.' That's a leap. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker uses hyperbole ('you're leaving him nothing') to describe the effect of taxes, implying a complete loss of inheritance. They then label this as 'common sense,' attempting to shut down any debate by suggesting that anyone who disagrees lacks basic understanding, rather than offering a nuanced argument.
Original quote: “That's on top of federal tax, right? So, basically, you're leaving him nothing. Uh you What you doing is you're just I mean, you you could be liberal, you could be anything. It's common sense. You're forcing people to leave, and these are the people that pay the taxes.”
Claims 50% state tax + federal tax leaves 'nothing' — ignoring the math and other factors 🤡 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:57
Saying 50% state tax + federal tax means 'leaving him nothing' is a bit dramatic. It's not 100% gone, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker implies that a 50% state inheritance tax, on top of federal taxes, effectively leaves the heir 'nothing.' This oversimplifies the situation, as it doesn't account for the actual federal estate tax rates, exemptions, or the total value of the inheritance. It exaggerates the impact by ignoring the specifics of how these taxes are applied and what remains.
Original quote: “That's on top of federal tax, right? So, basically, you're leaving him nothing. Uh you What you doing is you're just I mean, you you could be liberal, you could be anything. It's common sense. You're forcing people to leave, and these are the people that pay the taxes.”
Claiming high taxes leave heirs 'nothing' and force people to leave, ignoring actual tax structures. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:57
Claiming 'you're leaving him nothing' after a 50% tax is a bit dramatic. There are still other 50% left, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker claims that a 50% state inheritance tax 'on top of federal tax' means 'you're leaving him nothing.' This ignores the progressive nature of many tax systems, potential exemptions, and the fact that even after a 50% tax, a significant portion of the inheritance remains. It's a hyperbolic statement designed to amplify the perceived negative impact of taxes, omitting crucial details about how these taxes actually work.
Original quote: “That's on top of federal tax, right? So, basically, you're leaving him nothing. Uh you What you doing is you're just I mean, you you could be liberal, you could be anything. It's common sense. You're forcing people to leave, and these are the people that pay the taxes.”
Claiming high taxes leave heirs 'nothing' and force people to leave. Exaggeration and Missing Context. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:57
Said 'leaving him nothing' after a 50% tax, conveniently forgetting the other 50% still exists. Math is hard, I guess 🤡
Why this score: The speaker claims that a 50% inheritance tax (plus federal tax) leaves the heir 'nothing,' which is an exaggeration. While taxes reduce the inheritance, 'nothing' is a dramatic overstatement that ignores the remaining portion. It also lacks context on thresholds, exemptions, or actual combined state/federal rates, which vary significantly.
Original quote: “That's on top of federal tax, right? So, basically, you're leaving him nothing. Uh you What you doing is you're just I mean, you you could be liberal, you could be anything. It's common sense. You're forcing people to leave, and these are the people that pay the taxes.”
Calling a complex economic issue 'common sense' to simplify and push a narrative. Loaded Language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:08
Slapped 'common sense' on it to shut down any debate. Because if you disagree, you must be dumb, right? 🙄
Why this score: Labeling a complex issue like tax policy and migration as 'common sense' is a rhetorical shortcut. It dismisses the need for evidence or nuanced discussion, implying that anyone who doesn't agree with the speaker's conclusion is lacking basic understanding. This is a form of loaded language designed to make the argument seem self-evident and irrefutable.
Original quote: “It's common sense. You're forcing people to leave, and these are the people that pay the taxes.”
Reiterating the 90% tax claim and expanding the exodus to California. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:13
Doubled down on the '90% of taxes' claim without a single shred of evidence. Repetition doesn't make it true. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker repeats the unsubstantiated claim that the wealthy 'pay 90% of the taxes' and are now leaving, extending the narrative to California. This repetition reinforces the initial unverified statistic, presenting it as a given fact without ever providing any supporting data, which is a classic rhetorical tactic to make a claim seem more credible through sheer assertion.
Original quote: “They pay 90% of the taxes, and they're leaving New York, and they're leaving California too.”
Repeats the '90% of taxes' claim, doubling down without evidence 🚩 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:13
Still pushing that '90% of taxes' number like it's gospel, even after saying it once. Repetition doesn't make it true. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker reiterates the claim that the people leaving pay '90% of the taxes' without providing any supporting data or source. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim with confidence doesn't make it more credible; it just reinforces the lack of evidence. Community points out that many wealthy individuals hold property for value, not necessarily as primary residents, which further complicates the 'leaving' narrative. (Community points out that many wealthy individuals hold property for value, not necessarily as primary residents, which further complicates the 'leaving' narrative.)
Original quote: “They pay 90% of the taxes, and they're leaving New York, and they're leaving California too.”
Repeating the '90% of taxes' claim, reinforcing it without new evidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:13
Doubled down on the '90% of taxes' number. Repetition doesn't make it true, just louder. 📢
Why this score: The speaker reiterates the claim that 'they pay 90% of the taxes' without providing any additional evidence or source. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim with the same level of confidence, especially after it's already been stated, is a rhetorical tactic to make it sound more authoritative through sheer volume, not data. Community points out that many of these 'rich' people don't even live in the city, making the tax burden claim even more dubious. (COMMENT_1, COMMENT_2)
Original quote: “They pay 90% of the taxes, and they're leaving New York, and they're leaving California too.”
Reiterating the 90% tax claim and linking it to people leaving. Volume Game. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 1:13
Doubled down on the '90% of taxes' claim like saying it twice makes it true. Still zero receipts, though 💀
Why this score: The speaker repeats the unsubstantiated claim that 'they pay 90% of the taxes' without any new evidence. This repetition, combined with the assertion that these taxpayers are 'leaving,' attempts to lend more weight to the initial unverified claim through sheer volume rather than factual support. Community comments also suggest this 'leaving' narrative is overblown or misattributed. (Community points out that many wealthy individuals hold property for investment, not primary residence, and aren't 'leaving' in the way implied. [COMMENT_1], [COMMENT_2])
Original quote: “They pay 90% of the taxes, and they're leaving New York, and they're leaving California too.”
Reiterating the 90% tax claim and expanding the 'leaving' narrative. Confidence Mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:13
Doubled down on the '90% of taxes' and added California for good measure. Still no receipts, just vibes 🤡
Why this score: The speaker repeats the unsubstantiated claim that a specific group pays 90% of taxes, now extending the 'leaving' narrative to California as well. This repetition, without any supporting data, aims to reinforce the claim through sheer assertion, creating an illusion of widespread impact and certainty.
Original quote: “They pay 90% of the taxes, and they're leaving New York, and they're leaving California too.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →