Post from Truth Social

An Election Day endorsement filled in from the same template as the rest of the morning

The post went up at 8:07 a.m. Eastern on Election Day. Daylight time ended on November 1, so that clock holds whether he was at Mar-a-Lago, where he spent the last weekend of the campaign holding tele-rallies, or at the White House. It is one of at least six endorsements posted that morning. They share their wording: "Tremendous Advocate for the Great People of," "Keep our Border SECURE," "Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE," "Protect our always under siege Second Amendment," and the paragraph naming the opponent as "a Radical Left Democrat who is opposed to NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY." The Kiggans text keeps the slots of the Steil, Van Orden and McGuire posts and changes the biography ("A former Navy helicopter pilot"), the district and the opponent's name. Then come the signature "President DONALD J. TRUMP" and a link to the GOTV site swampthevoteusa.com, the kind of staff-produced, campaign-coordinated output that gets queued for release on a schedule.

The capitalization fits the template rather than any agitation in the moment. Policy slogans ("PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH," "NO TAX ON TIPS") are in caps every time they appear across the series. The text never drifts, interrupts itself or reacts to the news. Two irregular words appear. "Dumocrats" is a coined slur that has turned up in his posts before, a deliberate insult and not a language error. "Mutilization" for "mutilation" is a nonstandard form. One odd word inside a reused template says more about whoever drafted the text than about the speaker's language production, so it is not logged as a cognitive marker. The post shows a campaign operation's voice under his name more than his own thinking.

How the opponent is cast

Psychologically, the post shows the brand at work, not a person reacting. The split is complete: Kiggans "knows how to Defend our Country" and "WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN," while Luria "wants massive Tax Increases, Open Borders, Men playing in Women's Sports, and Transgender Mutilization of your Children" and is "Reckless, Radical, and Dangerous!" Nothing in the text concedes that the opponent has a single reasonable position. The attack also has nothing to do with Luria herself. Her list of offenses is the same list pasted onto Berman, Cooke and Gluesenkamp Perez, so the devaluation is aimed at a party category, "the Dumocrats," and not at anything she did. "Of your Children" moves the threat into the reader's household, and the hyperbolic reading of "Transgender Mutilization" aims the fear appeal at a vulnerable minority. That is the most stigmatizing phrase in the post, though it does not call anyone vermin or less than human, and it asks for nothing beyond turning out to vote.

The narrative is the familiar one of protector against invader. The endorser stands as kingmaker ("has my Complete and Total Endorsement"), conferring status on a loyal follower, and the Democrats play the force that would "terminate" what he has given. "If she and the Dumocrats ever got in, all of these things will be terminated" is a small contamination story told in advance: benefits granted, then taken away by the enemy. On the morning forecasts gave Democrats the edge for the House, the line fits the date. It reads as a turnout scare, and nothing in the text suggests it was set off by a wound. The grandiosity is limited to the endorsement formula, and the signature carries the self-reference ("President DONALD J. TRUMP").

Claims

The biography checks out: Kiggans flew helicopters in the Navy, and Luria, a retired Navy commander, came back for a third race against her. The policy attack has two problems. Luria has not sat in Congress since January 2023, so she cast no vote on the 2025 reconciliation law. And that law did not make Social Security tax-free. It added a temporary extra deduction for seniors, so "NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY" is a slogan without a statute behind it. The listed positions ("Open Borders," "Transgender Mutilization of your Children") are slogans standing in for claims about her record. This is the template's usual practice of turning partisan affiliation into stated positions, and it works the same way on every opponent in the series.

Fact Verification

What the provisions are and when they end: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed in July 2025, created a deduction for qualified tips (up to $25,000), a deduction for the overtime premium (up to $12,500, or $25,000 joint), and an extra $6,000 deduction for people 65 and older. IRS guidance says all of these apply to tax years 2025 through 2028. The law did not remove the tax on Social Security benefits. Several tax explainers note that "no tax on Social Security" was not in the bill and that the senior deduction applies whether or not someone draws benefits. Tips and overtime also still owe payroll taxes. So all three breaks expire after 2028 under the Republican-written law, whoever wins in 2026, unless Congress extends them. Any "termination" on that timeline is built into the statute, not something a Democratic win would cause.

Could a Democratic win in 2026 end them sooner? Repealing enacted tax law takes a bill passed by both chambers and signed by the president. Trump is in office until January 2029 and could veto any repeal. A veto override needs two-thirds of both chambers, which a midterm win would not deliver. A Democratic House majority on its own cannot terminate anything. The provisions would expire at the end of tax year 2028, before any new Democratic president took office.

What Democrats have actually said: FactCheck.org (Robert Farley, October 8, 2026) called GOP ads accusing Democrats of wanting to end these tax cuts "misleading." It found that many Democrats who opposed the bill as a whole support these specific provisions, and some want them made permanent. Examples: Rep. Chris Pappas co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to permanently cut most taxes on tips. Sen. Ruben Gallego called the tips provision "shamefully short term" and filed a bill to expand it. Democrats introduced the You Earned It, You Keep It Act to permanently end federal income tax on Social Security benefits. Candidates Roy Cooper, James Talarico and Bob Brooks said they back the tips and overtime breaks. FactCheck.org wrote that "opposition to the OBBBA doesn't necessarily translate to an opposition to the bill's tax cuts." A Wall Street Journal report from October 2025 found the same pattern of expansion proposals: Gallego on automatic gratuities, Reps. Tom Suozzi and Emilia Sykes on union-negotiated overtime, and Rep. Angie Craig on Social Security. In May 2025 the Senate passed Ted Cruz's standalone No Tax on Tips Act by unanimous consent, after Democrat Jacky Rosen brought it to the floor. Sens. Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto co-sponsored it, and Cortez Masto preferred it because it made the deduction permanent rather than temporary. Rep. Steven Horsford's House bill would also make the tips deduction permanent, paired with ending the subminimum tipped wage.

Luria specifically: I found no statement from Luria pledging to repeal the tips, overtime or senior deductions. The only sources tying her to that position are conservative outlets (Townhall, September and October 2026). They base it on her opposition to the bill as a whole and on a 2018 remark about rolling back the 2017 tax cuts. Neither is a statement about these 2025 provisions. Neutral coverage of the race (The Center Square, October 29, 2026; 13News Now) describes her campaign as focused on ACA subsidies, drug prices and tariffs, not on undoing these deductions. Some Democrats have floated campaigning on a "repeal" of the law. Party messaging has centered on its Medicaid and SNAP cuts and its breaks for top earners, not the tips and overtime deductions. Some Democratic-led states have declined to copy the breaks into state income tax, which has no effect on the federal deductions.

Why mostly false: A Democratic win in 2026 cannot end these provisions while Trump holds the veto. They lapse after 2028 under the law Republicans wrote. Many Democrats have proposed extending or expanding them, not ending them. The only part with any basis is that Democrats, Luria included, opposed the law that created them, and a future Democratic government could choose not to extend them. That falls well short of "all of these things will be terminated." | | "Luria wants massive tax increases, open borders, men in women's sports and transgender mutilation of children" | Mostly False | These are stock characterizations used against every opponent in the same-day series. None matches a policy position Luria has stated, and 'open borders' and 'mutilation of your children' are not positions any candidate holds. |

Overall Veracity: 52%