Each Friday, The Investigative Journal examines specific, checkable claims from the week’s political debate and measures them against primary-source evidence — government data, official records and original documents — rather than the conclusions of other fact-checkers. This week we test four claims drawn from both parties: a Democratic argument about the cause of rising prices, the administration’s characterization of its strikes on Iran, the Department of Homeland Security’s border statistics, and a Democratic warning about health-insurance costs. Where the record is mixed, we say so.
Claim 1: Tariffs pushed inflation to a three-year high
The claim. After the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on June 10 that consumer prices rose 4.2% over the 12 months ending in May, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the data “confirms what people already feel every time they go to the grocery store, fill up their gas tank, or pay their bills: costs are still too high, and Donald Trump is making it worse with his tariff taxes and reckless war in Iran.”
The evidence. The topline figure is accurate. According to the BLS, the Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% in May on a seasonally adjusted basis and 4.2% over the year before seasonal adjustment — up from 3.8% for the 12 months ending in April, and the highest annual reading in roughly three years. But the agency’s own breakdown complicates the attribution to tariffs. BLS reports that the energy index “accounted for over sixty percent of the monthly all items increase,” rising 3.9% in May and 23.5% over the year. By contrast, the index for all items less food and energy — the “core” measure where tariff-driven goods prices most clearly surface — rose just 0.2% in May and 2.9% over the year. Those energy prices were pushed higher by the disruption to Middle Eastern oil supplies during the Iran conflict, a factor Boyle himself names.
The verdict: Mostly accurate, with important context. Prices are indeed elevated and rising, and the 4.2% figure is real. But primary data indicate the dominant driver of May’s increase was energy tied to the war, not tariffs; core inflation, where tariff effects are most visible, was a more moderate 2.9%. Boyle’s statement is closest to the mark where it cites the Iran war and on weaker ground where it foregrounds “tariff taxes” as the chief cause of this particular month’s jump.
Claim 2: U.S. strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program
The claim. Through the conflict and into the agreement signed June 17 at Versailles, the administration has maintained that American strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program — language President Trump first used after the June 2025 operation and that officials have repeated since.
The evidence. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s most recent quarterly reports, dated June 4, 2026, and a detailed analysis of them by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) point to a more qualified picture — one that cuts in both directions. On one hand, the strikes were devastating to Iran’s enrichment infrastructure. The ISIS analysis concludes the attacks “destroyed Iran’s gas centrifuge enrichment program,” rendering inoperable nearly 22,000 centrifuges, eliminating Iran’s ability to produce uranium hexafluoride and removing, “for the first time in 20 years,” any identifiable route for Iran to produce weapon-grade uranium in its enrichment plants. On the other hand, Iran’s stockpile of roughly 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% — the most proliferation-sensitive material, and enough for several weapons if enriched further — was not eliminated. The IAEA states it “cannot provide any information on the current size, composition or whereabouts of the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran,” which is believed to be entombed at the bombed sites near Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz. Inspectors have had no access for nearly a year.
The verdict: Partly accurate, but overstated. The strikes plainly crippled Iran’s ability to enrich uranium — a substantial, verifiable result that even hawkish nonproliferation analysts describe as the destruction of the centrifuge program. But “obliterated,” understood to mean the program and its materials were eliminated, goes beyond what independent verification can support: the highly enriched uranium survived and remains unaccounted for. The strongest claim the record sustains is that the strikes destroyed Iran’s enrichment capacity — not that they erased its nuclear material.
Claim 3: The border is at record lows
The claim. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said that “under President Trump’s leadership, DHS and CBP have shattered records and delivered the most secure border in American history.”
The evidence. Customs and Border Protection’s own statistics support the core of the claim. In fiscal 2025, Border Patrol apprehensions between ports of entry at the Southwest border totaled 237,538 — the lowest level since 1970, according to CBP figures compiled by the House Homeland Security Committee. That represented a 79% drop in Southwest border encounters from fiscal 2024; in September 2025 alone, Southwest apprehensions fell 84.4% from a year earlier (8,386 versus 53,858). For comparison, there were roughly 1.6 million crossings in fiscal 2021. Those historically low levels have continued into fiscal 2026, and CBP has recorded multiple consecutive months with zero parole releases.
The verdict: Accurate on the central metric. Apprehensions and encounters — the standard measures CBP publishes — are at their lowest in more than half a century, and the government’s own data bear that out. “Most secure in American history” is a superlative, and some related measures, such as “got-aways” who evade capture, are harder to verify independently. But the underlying numerical claim about apprehensions is well supported.
Claim 4: ACA premiums are about to more than double
The claim. Senate Democrats have warned that Americans “in all 50 states” face a “massive increase” in health-insurance costs, with marketplace premiums set to spike and millions at risk of losing coverage when the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025.
The evidence. The figure most often cited — that premiums will “more than double” — comes from KFF’s analysis of federal rate filings and enrollment data. KFF estimates that if the enhanced credits lapse, the average premium payment for subsidized enrollees would rise 114%, from $888 in 2025 to about $1,904 in 2026. That figure measures what enrollees pay after subsidies, not the sticker price: insurers are separately proposing a median gross premium increase of roughly 18% for 2026, the largest since 2018. About 22 of the 24 million marketplace enrollees receive the enhanced credits. The Congressional Budget Office, whose projections KFF cites, has estimated the expiration would shrink marketplace enrollment by roughly a quarter and add several million people to the uninsured rolls over the decade.
The verdict: Accurate, with a distinction worth drawing. The “more than double” claim is supported by federal data, but it refers to enrollees’ out-of-pocket payments net of subsidies, not the gross premium, which is rising by a smaller margin. The coverage-loss warning is consistent with CBO’s projections. The facts hold up; the two figures simply describe different things, and careful claims should keep them separate.
How TIJ fact-checks
The Investigative Journal conducts its own primary-source research. For each claim, we locate the original statement in context, then test it against the underlying records — here, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index release, the IAEA’s safeguards and verification reports, Customs and Border Protection’s encounter data, the Congressional Budget Office’s projections and KFF’s analysis of federal rate filings. We rely on government data, official documents and specialist research rather than the verdicts of other fact-checking organizations, and we link to those sources so readers can examine them directly. We check claims from across the political spectrum, distinguish allegations from findings, and flag statements that are technically true but missing context. Where the evidence is incomplete — as with battle-damage assessments that depend on inspector access Iran is not currently granting — we say so rather than overstate what the record can bear. Corrections and right-of-reply requests can be submitted to our editors.
Sources:
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index — May 2026” (released June 10, 2026): bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_06102026.htm | CPI home
- Rep. Brendan Boyle, statement on May 2026 CPI data: democrats-budget.house.gov
- Institute for Science and International Security, “Analysis of IAEA Iran Verification and Monitoring and NPT Safeguards Reports — June 2026”: isis-online.org
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Board of Governors report GOV/2026/8: iaea.org (PDF)
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Land Border Encounters: cbp.gov | House Homeland Security Committee Border Brief (Nov. 13, 2025): homeland.house.gov
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Shatters Nationwide Border Records”: dhs.gov
- KFF, “ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double… if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire”: kff.org | 2026 marketplace data (citing CBO)
- Senate Democratic Leadership, “Americans In All 50 States Brace For Massive Increase In Health Insurance Costs”: democrats.senate.gov