Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger used her State of the Union response to hammer President Donald Trump on everything from tariffs to border policy. The talking points weren’t invented, but they told a version of the story with some important chapters missing.
Hours before Spanberger delivered her remarks, the White House released a detailed statement outlining what it described as her long record of opposing tax relief, border security, and law enforcement positions that directly undercut her claims.
Spanberger blamed rising costs on Trump’s trade policies, she estimated American families have paid more than $1,700 each in tariffs since he took office, which is in the range of other reported estimates. But the White House noted that Spanberger’s record showed no better, she opposed President Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced taxes for roughly 80% of American taxpayers, and supported Biden-era multi-trillion-dollar spending packages that economists warned would fuel inflation.
Governor Spanberger also said, “Even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done.” It’s worth noting, however, that the Supreme Court said the president exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing sweeping tariffs, however, the court’s action did not nullify all tariffs instantly and wholesale, nor did it directly issue refunds or immediately undo all tariff collections.
The ruling focused on the procedural basis for the tariff authority, not on a blanket cancellation of all trade levies, in fact, Trump has reinstated tariffs, invoking his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Spanberger also accused Republicans of supporting “massive tax hikes,” yet her own record on taxes in Virginia tells a different story. Since taking office in January, the Democratic majority in the Virginia General Assembly, working closely with Spanberger, has introduced dozens of new tax proposals, including measures to create new income tax brackets and expand taxes on investment income, potentially pushing the commonwealth’s top rate on investments to 13.8% — higher than even California’s.
Then Spanberger blamed Republican legislation, specifically the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” for threatening rural hospitals and stripping healthcare access. While rural healthcare access is a documented problem, primary data shows the issue long predates current congressional action.
The American Hospital Association, for instance, reports that rural closures have occurred steadily and have been driven by structural challenges in rural healthcare delivery, with some of the highest closure numbers occurring while President Barack Obama was in office and during the COVID pandemic.
On public safety, Spanberger leaned heavily on her background as a former federal agent and CIA officer, portraying herself as a defender of law enforcement while accusing the Trump administration of unleashing “poorly trained federal agents” who arrest citizens without warrants.
Yet the White House statement highlights that Spanberger voted against the Secure the Border Act, supported pathways to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, and twice voted to terminate President Trump’s national emergency declaration at the southern border. As governor, she also ended Virginia’s cooperation agreement with ICE, halting information sharing with federal immigration authorities.
But what she fails to mention is that there have been no Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, or court findings confirming systemic illegality. Beyond that, immigration enforcement operates under civil, not criminal, warrant standards.
While Spanberger accused Trump of “sowing fear” through immigration enforcement, the administration countered that her policies prioritized illegal aliens over public safety, citing her refusal to condemn a Washington, D.C., crime bill that reduced penalties for violent offenders.
Spanberger said Trump is “ceding economic power and technological strength,” “bowing down to a Russian dictator,” and “making plans for war with Iran.” Those assertions bundle three distinct policy areas, none of which have verifiable wholesale policy reversals in official treaties or policy documents as implied.
The Trump administration has maintained sanctions and export controls on Chinese entities; however, recent trade rulings have directly challenged the presidential authority to impose tariffs without an explicit congressional grant. So, in a roundabout manner, it’s been the Democrats who have been ceding U.S. economic leverage against China. In Russia and Iran, U.S. policy continues to involve sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
To conclude the pre-buttal response, the White House said, “Tonight, while President Trump highlights the successes of his America First agenda in slashing costs, revitalizing manufacturing, securing our borders, and delivering real relief — Spanberger’s response will only underscore her party’s commitment to the failed lunacy Americans rejected.”
Spanberger closed her address by urging voters to “reject this chaos” and return Democrats to power. But the contrast between her rhetoric and the documented record highlights the central tension of her response: sweeping claims delivered with certainty, while the underlying policy history tells a more complicated story. As Republicans argue, the question is not whether Americans are frustrated; it is whether Spanberger’s record reflects the affordability, public safety, and restraint she now claims to champion.
