During a recent interview, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed lowering the voting age to sixteen, citing a sense of urgency among Gen Z regarding climate change. She described a generation gripped by “climate anxiety,” fearing an existential threat from extreme weather events.
Harris also asserted she had “negotiated treaties with hundreds of world leaders” in her role as Vice President. This claim, however, clashes sharply with the established framework of U.S. constitutional law and the realities of her position.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants the power to negotiate and sign treaties solely to the President, with the crucial “advice and consent” of the Senate. This is enshrined in Article II, Section 2, leaving no constitutional role for the Vice President in this process.
Her statement wasn’t a momentary lapse in speech; it was a demonstrably false claim intended to amplify a non-existent record in foreign policy. The Vice President’s official duties center on presiding over the Senate and supporting the President’s agenda, not independently conducting international diplomacy.
Public records corroborate this. While Harris has attended diplomatic meetings and events, representing the administration, there is no evidence of her signing any treaties. Major international agreements during her tenure have been spearheaded by President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
This pattern of exaggeration isn’t new. Throughout her career, Harris has faced scrutiny for statements that appear disconnected from tangible results. She previously claimed to have “fought for the middle class” while serving in a state with high taxes and housing costs.
As Attorney General, promises of criminal justice reform were shadowed by policies that coincided with rising crime rates. Similarly, despite pledging to address the border crisis, she initially delayed a visit to the area for months.
This tendency to make sweeping claims, coupled with an expectation of minimal fact-checking and supportive media coverage, has become a recurring theme. It suggests a strategy of presenting an image of competence through rhetoric rather than demonstrable achievement.
In contrast, a previous administration’s foreign policy record, even within its first term, was characterized by concrete outcomes. The renegotiation of NAFTA, the brokering of the Abraham Accords, and the securing of financial commitments from NATO allies stand as documented accomplishments.
Harris’s recent assertions point to a broader issue within her political circle—a willingness to distort records in an attempt to project an image of global competence. This raises questions about the authenticity of claims made by members of her party on the world stage.
