Listen to the article
In a wide-ranging interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, President Donald Trump addressed several key issues facing his administration, including immigration, inflation, and crime. The president’s statements on these topics, however, contained several inaccuracies that merit closer examination.
Immigration claims regarding the southern border featured prominently in the interview, with Trump asserting that “for five months in a row [there have been] zero people coming into our country through our southern border.” This statement significantly misrepresents the current situation.
Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals that while border crossings have declined substantially compared to the numbers recorded during the Biden administration, they are far from zero. Several thousand migrants are still apprehended at the southern border each month. What Trump may have been referencing is that for five consecutive months, CBP has not released any migrants from its custody into the United States – a policy shift under his administration, but not an indication that border crossings have stopped entirely.
The president’s characterization of grocery prices also strayed from economic reality. Trump claimed that grocery prices “right now they’re going down – other than beef, which we’re working on.” Official statistics contradict this assertion.
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, average grocery prices in the United States increased by 0.3% between August and September 2024. Beef and veal prices specifically rose by 1.2% during this period. In the broader context, grocery prices are up 2.7% compared to the same time last year.
Dairy products were the only major food category that showed a month-to-month price decline, making Trump’s blanket statement about falling prices misleading. The administration’s efforts to address beef prices, which he mentioned briefly, come amid ongoing concerns about consolidation in the meatpacking industry and its effects on consumer costs.
The president also made a questionable claim about crime in Washington, D.C., stating that before his administration’s federal takeover of the U.S. capital, Washington “was almost like a crime capital of the world.”
This characterization significantly exaggerates the crime situation in the District. While Washington does have crime rates higher than some other major U.S. cities, violent crime in the capital had already fallen to its lowest level in 30 years in 2024, according to the most recent annual police data. This downward trend in violent crime began before any federal intervention took place.
Moreover, there is no credible research supporting Trump’s assertion that Washington, D.C. has “one of the worst crime rates in the world.” Such a comparison would place the District alongside cities with significantly higher violence levels in countries with severe security challenges.
The federal takeover of Washington, D.C., which reduced the city’s autonomy, has been controversial. Critics argue it undermines local democracy, while supporters maintain it has enhanced safety and security in the nation’s capital.
These factual discrepancies in the president’s “60 Minutes” interview highlight the ongoing challenge of separating rhetoric from reality in political discourse, particularly as the administration continues to emphasize its accomplishments on immigration enforcement, economic management, and public safety.
The interview, broadcast to millions of Americans, represents one of Trump’s most high-profile media appearances in recent months, coming at a time when his administration’s policies continue to reshape federal governance across multiple domains.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


7 Comments
Oil spills can have devastating long-term consequences, so I hope the relevant authorities are able to get a clear picture of what happened here and take appropriate action. Transparency will be key.
While it’s concerning to see reports of an oil spill, I’d want to see more corroborating evidence before drawing firm conclusions. Satellite data can be tricky to interpret, especially in complex maritime environments.
Good point. It will be important for independent experts to thoroughly assess the situation on the ground and determine the extent and cause of any environmental impacts.
Interesting that satellite imagery is being used to investigate potential environmental damage from this incident. I wonder what the specific impacts on the local ecosystem and marine life might be.
This highlights the importance of monitoring and accountability when it comes to critical energy and shipping infrastructure, especially in sensitive ecological regions. Hopefully the situation can be quickly contained and mitigated.
It’s troubling to see reports of an apparent oil spill, but I’ll reserve judgment until more verified information comes to light. Environmental protection should be a top priority in these types of incidents.
Agreed. Jumping to conclusions without a full investigation could be counterproductive. Gathering solid evidence is crucial in these sensitive situations.