research paper on impact of covid 19 on unemployment in india

FIND YOUR MP

Legislatures

Bills & acts, a note of gratitude to mr. n. vaghul.

• The PRS Blog

Impact of COVID-19 on employment in urban areas

In April 2020, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimated that nearly 2.5 crore jobs could be lost worldwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.  Further, it observed that more than 40 crore informal workers in India may get pushed into deeper poverty due to the pandemic.  In this blog post, we discuss the effect of COVID-19 on unemployment in urban areas as per the quarterly Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) report released last week, and highlight some of the measures taken by the central government with regard to unemployment.

Unemployment rate remains notably higher than the pre-COVID period 

To contain the spread of COVID-19, a nationwide lockdown was imposed from late March till May 2020.   During the lockdown, severe restrictions were placed on the movement of individuals and economic activities were significantly halted barring the activities related to essential goods and services.  Unemployment rate in urban areas rose to 20.9% during the April-June quarter of 2020, more than double the unemployment rate in the same quarter the previous year ( 8.9% ).  Unemployment rate refers to the percentage of unemployed persons in the labour force.  Labour force includes persons who are either employed or unemployed but seeking work.  The lockdown restrictions were gradually relaxed during the subsequent months.   Unemployment rate also saw a decrease as compared to the levels seen in the April-June quarter of 2020.  During the October-December quarter of 2020 (latest data available), unemployment rate had reduced to 10.3% .  However, it was notably higher than the unemployment rate in the same quarter last year ( 7.9%) .

Figure  1 : Unemployment rate in urban areas across all age groups as per current weekly activity status (Figures in %)

Note: PLFS includes data for transgenders among males. Sources: Quarterly Periodic Labour Force Survey Reports, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation; PRS.

Recovery post-national lockdown uneven in case of females

Pre-COVID-19 trends suggest that the female unemployment rate has generally been higher than the male unemployment rate in the country (7.3% vs 9.8% during the October-December quarter of 2019, respectively).  Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this gap seems to have widened.   During the October-December quarter of 2020, the unemployment rate for females was 13.1%, as compared to 9.5% for males.

The Standing Committee on Labour (April 2021) also noted that the pandemic led to large-scale unemployment for female workers, in both organised and unorganised sectors.  It recommended: (i) increasing government procurement from women-led enterprises, (ii) training women in new technologies, (iii) providing women with access to capital, and (iv) investing in childcare and linked infrastructure.

Labour force participation

Persons dropping in and out of the labour force may also influence the unemployment rate.  At a given point of time, there may be persons who are below the legal working age or may drop out of the labour force due to various socio-economic reasons, for instance, to pursue education.  At the same time, there may also be discouraged workers who, while willing and able to be employed, have ceased to seek work.  Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is the indicator that denotes the percentage of the population which is part of the labour force.  The LFPR saw only marginal changes throughout 2019 and 2020.  During the April-June quarter (where COVID-19 restrictions were the most stringent), the LFPR was 35.9%, which was lower than same in the corresponding quarter in 2019 (36.2%).  Note that female LFPR in India is significantly lower than male LFPR (16.6% and 56.7%, respectively, in the October-December quarter of 2019).

Figure  2 : LFPR in urban areas across all groups as per current weekly activity status (Figures in %)

Measures taken by the government for workers

The Standing Committee on Labour in its  report  released in August 2021 noted that 90% of workers in India are from the informal sector.  These workers include: (i) migrant workers, (ii) contract labourers, (iii) construction workers, and (iv) street vendors.  The Committee observed that these workers were worst impacted by the pandemic due to seasonality of employment and lack of employer-employee relationship in unorganised sectors.  The Committee recommended central and state governments to: (i) encourage entrepreneurial opportunities, (ii) attract investment in traditional manufacturing sectors and developing industrial clusters, (iii) strengthen social security measures, (iv) maintain a database of workers in the informal sector, and (v) promote vocational training.   It  took note of the various steps taken by the central government to support workers and address the challenges and threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (applicable to urban areas): 

• Under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), the central government contributed both 12% employer’s share and 12% employee’s share under Employees Provident Fund (EPF).  Between March and August 2020, a total of Rs 2,567 crore was credited in EPF accounts of 38.85 lakhs eligible employees through 2.63 lakh establishments.  
• The Aatmanirbhar Bharat Rozgar Yojna (ABRY) Scheme was launched with effect from October 2020 to incentivise employers for the creation of new employment along with social security benefits and restoration of loss of employment during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Further, statutory provident fund contribution of both employers and employees was reduced to 10% each from the existing 12% for all establishments covered by EPF Organisation for three months.  As of June 30, 2021, an amount of Rs 950 crore has been disbursed under ABRY to around 22 lakh beneficiaries.  
• The unemployment benefit under the Atal Beemit Vyakti Kalyan Yojana (launched in July 2018) was enhanced from 25% to 50% of the average earning for insured workers who have lost employment due to COVID-19.  
• Under the Prime Minister’s Street Vendor’s Aatma Nirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) scheme, the central government provided an initial working capital of up to Rs 10,000 to street vendors.  As of June 28, 2021, 25 lakh loan applications have been sanctioned and Rs 2,130 crore disbursed to 21.57 lakh beneficiaries.

The central and state governments have also taken various other measures , such as increasing spending on infrastructure creation and enabling access to cheaper lending for businesses, to sustain economic activity and boost employment generation.

Mr. Vaghul, our first Chairperson, passed away on Saturday.  I write this note to express my deep gratitude to him, and to celebrate his life.  And what a life he lived!

Industry stalwarts have spoken about his contributions to the financial sector, his mentorship of people and institutions across finance, industry and non-profits.  I don’t want to repeat that (though I was a beneficiary as a young professional starting my career at ICICI Securities).  I want to note here some of the ways he helped shape PRS.

Mr Vaghul was our first chairman, from 2012 to 2018.  When he joined the board, we were in deep financial crisis.  Our FCRA application had been turned down (I still don’t know the reason), and we were trying to survive on monthly fund raise.  Mr Vaghul advised us to raise funds from domestic philanthropists.  “PRS works to make Indian democracy more effective.  We should not rely on foreigners to do this.”.  He was sure that Indian philanthropists would fund us.  “We’ll try our best.  But if it doesn’t work, we may shut down.  Are you okay with that?”  Of course, with him calling up people, we survived the crisis.

He also suggested that we should have an independent board without any representation from funders.  The output should be completely independent of funders’ interest given that we were working in the policy space.  We have stuck to this advice.

Even when he was 80, he could read faster than anyone and remember everything.  I once said something in a board meeting which had been written in the note sent earlier.  “We have all read the note.  Let us discuss the implications.”  And he could think three steps ahead of everyone else.

He had a light touch as a chairman.  When I asked for management advice, he would ask me to solve the problem on my own.  He saw his role as guiding the larger strategy, help raise funds and ensure that the organisation had a strong value system.  Indeed, he was the original Karmayogi – I have an email from him which says, “Continue with the good work.  We should neither be euphoric with appreciation or distracted by criticism.” And another, "Those who adhere to the truth need not be afraid of the consequences".

The best part about board meetings was the chat afterwards.  He would have us in splits with stories from his experience.  Some of these are in his memoirs, but we heard a few juicier ones too!

Even after he retired from our Board, he was always available to meet.  I just needed to message him whenever I was in Madras, and he would ask me to come home.  And Mrs. Vaghul was a welcoming host.  Filter coffee, great advice, juicy stories, what more could one ask for?

Goodbye Mr. Vaghul.  Your life lives on through the institutions you nurtured.  And hope that we live up to your standards.

Recent Posts

• 1. A note of gratitude to Mr. N. Vaghul
• 2. What is Fuelling Power Sector Losses?
• 3. First no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed today
• 4. Anti-cheating laws for competitive examinations
• 5. Uttarakhand Assembly concludes 2-day session; 13 Bills introduced and passed

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: An analysis of policy and technological interventions

a Economics Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India

Seema Sharma

b Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India

Smita Kashiramka

Following a surge in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in June 2020, India became the third-worst affected country worldwide. This study aims to analyse the underlying epidemiological situation in India and explain possible impacts of policy and technological changes.

Secondary data were utilized, including recently published literature from government sources, the COVID-19 India website and local media reports. These data were analysed, with a focus on the impact of policy and technological interventions.

The spread of COVID-19 in India was initially characterized by fewer cases and lower case fatality rates compared with numbers in many developed countries, primarily due to a stringent lockdown and a demographic dividend. However, economic constraints forced a staggered lockdown exit strategy, resulting in a spike in COVID-19 cases. This factor, coupled with low spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), created mayhem because of inadequate numbers of hospital beds and ventilators and a lack of medical personnel, especially in the public health sector. Nevertheless, technological advances, supported by a strong research base, helped contain the damage resulting from the pandemic.

Conclusions

Following nationwide lockdown, the Indian economy was hit hard by unemployment and a steep decline in growth. The early implementation of lockdown initially decreased the doubling rate of cases and allowed time to upscale critical medical infrastructure. Measures such as asymptomatic testing, public–private partnerships, and technological advances will be essential until a vaccine can be developed and deployed in India.

Public interest summary

The spread of COVID-19 in India was initially characterized by lower case numbers and fewer deaths compared with numbers in many developed countries. This was mainly due to a stringent lockdown and demographic factors. However, economic constraints forced a staggered lockdown exit strategy, resulting in a spike in COVID-19 cases in June 2020. Subsequently, India became the third-worst affected country worldwide. Low spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) meant there was a shortage of hospital beds and ventilators and a lack of medical personnel, especially in the public health sector. Nevertheless, technological advances, supported by a strong research base, helped contain the health and economic damage resulting from the pandemic. In the future, measures such as asymptomatic testing, public–private partnerships, and technological advances will be essential until a vaccine against COVID-19 can be developed and rolled-out in India.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to the people and governments of every country in a very short period since its emergence in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 [1] . The first case of COVID-19 in India was reported on 30 January 2020 in the state of Kerala; this was a student who returned from Wuhan and tested positive for COVID-19, following which aggressive contact tracing followed by 14-day home quarantine for suspected cases were enforced [2] . The state remained on high alert. During March, cases began to be reported across India. Despite the aggressive measures taken by the Indian government to prevent and contain the epidemic, as of 12 August 2020 there were 652,473 active cases, 1,695,860 recovered cases, and 47,138 deaths due to COVID-19 [3] .

India is the world's second-most populous and the third-worst affected country by COVID-19 to date (in terms of the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases). Therefore, it is relevant to review how the country has fought the pandemic since its onset. Against this backdrop, the focus of this paper is to assess the impact of public policy and technological interventions on COVID-19 trends in India. First, India's diverse demographic profile followed by the status of health and hospital infrastructure prior to the COVID-19 pandemic are presented. Second, the impact of the pandemic on India and the measures taken by the government in response are discussed. Third, the technological advances that catalysed the overall recovery process are summarised. Finally, the economic impact of the pandemic is presented, followed by concluding observations with regards to the impact of these measures, their limitations and the way forwards.

Country description

Country and health system overview.

India comprises 28 states and 8 union territories. Table 1 [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] shows that despite a huge population, the old-age dependency ratio and life expectancy in India are lower than the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 0.264 and 80.7 years, respectively [9] . The current health expenditure in India as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the lowest in the world, which has left the country with insufficient doctors, nurses and beds to face an unprecedented situation such as a pandemic. Social distancing is a key part of tackling the spread of COVID-19, but a high population density can make social distancing challenging. Furthermore, more than half of the elderly population in India has co-morbidities, e.g. hypertension and diabetes, which could potentially increase these individuals’ risk of contracting COVID-19. However, India's median age reflects the fact that more than half of the country's population comprises the young, thereby lowering the anticipated fatality rates from COVID-19.

Overview of the demographics and the health system in India.

A health-system overview is critical for tracking the diverse demographic and health indicators across the country (see Table 2 ) [10] , [11] , [12] . Population density exhibits extreme variations, from 123 individuals per km 2 in Himachal Pradesh to 1106 individuals per km 2 in Bihar. The percentage of the population aged 60 years or more varies from 6.7% in Jharkhand to 12.9% in Kerala. Furthermore, the average life expectancy varies from 63.6 to 72.2 years and is higher for females than males. These variations result from the jurisdiction for health being decentralized, with states having the power to allocate health budgets. Health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is as high as 2.21% in Assam and as low as 0.60% in Maharashtra, even though the population of Maharashtra is 3.5 times that of Assam.

An overview of the health system in India by state.

Differences in health spending result in major variations in health infrastructure in terms of hospitals, beds, ventilators, etc. across the states. For example, Jharkhand and Kerala have comparable populations but the number of hospitals, beds and ventilators in the public sector varies by almost 3.5 times (see Table 3 ) [ 6 , 13 , 14 ]. A visible mismatch between medical infrastructure supply and demand in the public sector will pose a big challenge to deal with the increasing number of cases across the country under the prevailing situation.

An overview of private versus public health infrastructure in India by state.

Healthcare financing in India is a mix of public and private schemes; however, at least 75% of the population has no kind of insurance cover [15] . Furthermore, the private sector provides 58% of hospitals and 81% of doctors in India [16] . During the early days of the pandemic, public hospitals were involved in the testing and treatment of COVID-19. Insufficient public health infrastructure together with a surge in cases called for a policy revision in terms of participation of the private sector in testing and treatment for COVID-19. The public sector accounts for around 20% of the total healthcare expenditure in India, representing around 1% of GDP, one of the lowest proportions of any country in the world [17] . The remaining 80% contributed by the private sector is targeted towards financing and the creation of infrastructure facilities. While diagnosis and treatment were free for 500 million beneficiaries of the health insurance scheme ‘Ayushman Bharat’ in public hospitals, the costs of tests (USD 44) and treatment were capped at private facilities. For example, the Delhi government capped isolation facilities at USD 160–200 per day for isolation beds, USD 260–350 per day for an ICU bed without a ventilator, and USD 300–360 per day for an ICU bed with a ventilator [18] .

Changes due to COVID-19

Other changes in India included contingency plans for an anticipated surge in cases. Railway coaches (2,500) were converted to isolation wards, making available an additional capacity of 40,000 beds [19] . Paramedical staff, including volunteers, ex-service people, homeopathic and ayurvedic practitioners, medical students, teachers, doctors (including retired doctors), and others, were identified at municipal, district and state levels to create an online data pool of 15,896,093 human resources for various activities required to fight COVID-19; each person was designated a ‘COVID warrior’, and a surveillance policy of one COVID warrior per 250 citizens was devised [20] . With the increased supply of infrastructure and human resources, it was equally important to match the demand for medical equipment and medicines. With the involvement of private hospitals, the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) increased.

Zonal classification

Geographical areas within a city were classified as red (more than 15 confirmed cases on a given day), orange (up to 15 confirmed cases), or green (no cases) zones, based on levels of infections [21] . Containment zones were geographical areas where a cluster of confirmed cases (more than six) was found, especially in cramped locations where social distancing was not realistically possible. Specific guidelines in these areas include:

• • Entry only after a taking COVID-19 preventive drug.
• • Designated helpline numbers for the delivery of essential items, sanitisation drives, and health check-ups.
• • Restricted movement to other zones, with violators booked under sections of the Disaster Management Act (2005), the Epidemic Diseases Act (1897), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• • Zones were reassessed within four weeks from the discharge of the last confirmed case.

This concept of zonal classification was based on the steep learning curve experienced during the 1918 influenza A virus (H1N1) pandemic in India. One of the lessons learned during this earlier pandemic was that even though the spread of a virus among the Indian population could be high, it is unlikely to affect all parts of the country uniformly [22] .

COVID-19 trends

Overview of data availability and data transparency.

State governments usually report COVID-19 data based on daily numbers of confirmed, deceased, recovered and active cases. The major channels for disseminating official data included the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Aarogya Setu Mobile application, press conferences, and the COVID-19 India website [23] , which was developed by a group of volunteers. Table 4 [23] provides an overview of the growth rate of the epidemic during different phases of the mitigation strategies.

COVID-19 spread during subsequent lockdowns in 2020.

Fig. 1 [23] shows the top-ten states with the highest tally of confirmed cases (up to 12 August 2020). Maharashtra emerged as the epicentre of the virus, with clusters of infections in Asia's biggest slum, ‘Dharavi’. Although Telangana and Gujarat reported a similar percentage of confirmed cases, Gujarat reported a higher percentage of deaths. New Delhi had a lower percentage of confirmed cases than Karnataka but reported a higher percentage of deaths. These differences reflect differences in technological expertise and medical facilities across states.

State-wise share of COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths (2020).

Trends in COVID-19 cases, deaths and recoveries

Fig. 2 [3] depicts the impact of various unlock phases on the increase in the number of new cases. It should be noted that until the end of phase 4, the trend was linear. However, during unlock phase 5, the trend resembled an exponentially increasing curve tapering off during unlock phase 6 (R 2  = 88.57%). It was observed that during this time, the recovery rate was constantly increasing (see Fig. 3 ) [3] , with less than 1% of confirmed cases on ventilators, less than 2% in ICUs and less than 3% in oxygen beds [24] . The growth in recovery rates started matching the growth in confirmed cases, possibly due to a better understanding of the nature and treatment of a novel disease from a technological perspective.

New cases of COVID-19 in India during 2020.

Trends in confirmed, recovered and deceased cases of COVID-19 (cumulative) during 2020.

The case fatality rate (CFR), when comparing the top-three worst-affected countries (in terms of the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases) shows that India's CFR (see Fig. 4 ) [3] was much lower [25] . This could possibly be attributable to demographic factors, such as a relatively young population, the effectiveness of an early lockdown [26] , a possible inverse correlation between Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) immunization and COVID-19 incidence and severity [27] , missing data from untested deceased patients, or the temperature and humidity [28] . A slight increase in CFR during March 2020 was possibly due to states initiating the process to have their statistics audited by Death Audit Committees (DAC). A written explanation for any delay in reporting COVID-19 fatalities was mandated, to prevent any underreporting of actual numbers.

COVID-19 case fatality rate in the three worst-affected countries during 2020.

State-wise evolution of COVID-19

The state-wise evolution of the spread of COVID-19 during the first 100 days of the epidemic is shown in Fig. 5 [23] , showing that the evolution of the disease differed across states. Kerala received accolades from the United Nations while leading India's early response to this pandemic [29] . The curve for Kerala was almost linear until day 40 after an initial spike in cases.

Evolution and spread of COVID-19 across states during the first 100 days.

Kerala ranks first in the overall health index [30] , where public initiatives in health went hand in hand with private partnerships to fight COVID-19 [31] . A highly responsive and robust healthcare model started systematically preparing to handle a possible outbreak in January 2020. Kerala launched the ‘Break the Chain’ campaign as a means to highlight the importance of hygiene (handwashing) and social distancing. Standard operating procedures covered aggressive contact tracing; infection control for ambulances; careful management of biomedical waste and handling the spillage of body fluids; disinfection and sterilisation; management of dead bodies; use of PPE; and sample collection and transportation. Transparency in communication was maintained, in the form of reporting daily confirmed cases, revised guidelines related to quarantine, hospital admissions, and discharged cases. Additionally, the state undertook total financial responsibility for testing and treatment. However, during July, Kerala witnessed a sudden surge in COVID-19 cases, largely due to the easing of lockdown restrictions and an influx of migrants from other states and from abroad [32] . As a result, there was a sharp increase in the percentage of locally transmitted cases (contacts of the imported cases) [33] . During this time, the scale of testing was unable to match the scale of migrants, thereby delaying the contact tracing and treatment protocol. Additionally, the use of rapid antigen tests (with low accuracy) [59] possibly reduced the reliability of results [34] .

Age and sex trends

COVID-19 is more likely to infect the male population in India, with the highest percentage of cases in males aged 30 to 39 years (see Fig. 6 ) [35] . In the absence of specific COVID-19 statistics based on comorbidities, patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and heart disease have been considered at risk [36] . The male population aged more than 60 years accounts for the majority of deaths (see Fig. 7 ) [35] .

The percentage of confirmed COVID-19 cases by age group.

The percentage of deaths from COVID-19 by age and sex.

Policy and technology road map

Policy mandates.

For any country to make a rapid recovery from the effects of the pandemic, it is imperative to investigate the role of policy and technological changes. Tables 5a [37] , ​ ,5(b) 5 (b) [37] and ​ and5(c) 5 (c) [38] list government policies across India and by sector.

Government policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interventions introduced across industries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Amendments in medical export policy.

Table 5b shows that during March and April, schools planned to roll-out online learning, both in terms of formulating online content and upgrading their information technology (IT) infrastructure. The objective of opening liquor shops during phase 3 was to replenish state revenues through excise duty on liquor, which comprises between 10% and 15% of their tax revenue. The resumption of selected economic activities indicated a staggered lockdown exit strategy. From Phase 4 onwards, the responsibility for unlock policies was transferred to the state level, as the spread of disease varied across states.

India's pharmaceutical industry, which is third largest in the world by volume, sources the majority of its active pharmaceutical ingredients from China [40] . This supply was affected owing to the virus outbreak in China. Hence, during the initial phases of lockdown, Indian exports were prohibited or restricted to maintain an undisrupted supply chain for the nation, as shown in Table 5c . However, following a tremendous increase in indigenous manufacturing capacity, medical exports began opening up again during July.

Economic relief measures taken by the Indian government

Within a month of lockdown, the unemployment rate in India increased dramatically, from 8.7% in March to 23.52% in April 2020 (see Fig. 8 ) [42] . This resulted in job losses for an estimated 140 million people and an income drop for more than 45% of households [43] . As evident from Fig. 8 , the unemployment rate started to decline again after May because of the reopening of industries and other commercial activities and almost reached pre-COVID-19 levels. Relief measures were announced through different modes, via the central bank or existing schemes; however, they had limited social coverage considering the duration of lockdown (see Table 6 ) [44] . The Reserve Bank of India (RBI; central bank) eased the burden of loan payments by allowing companies to make late repayments. Schemes were launched to provide cash and essential items to vulnerable families. A stimulus package was announced, in four tranches, for small businesses and farmers.

The unemployment rate in India during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Economic relief measures introduced by the Indian government (pre-COVID-19 peak).

Technological advances

India is among the largest manufacturers of vaccines in the world and was the fifth country to isolate the strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 [45] . India could play an important role in terms of mass-producing a vaccine at an affordable cost [46] . Out of seven Indian firms racing to develop a vaccine, two had vaccine candidates already in the human trial phase as of August 2020 [46] . Around 12 August, India's proportion of recovered COVID-19 cases of 70%, shown in Fig. 9 [3] , was higher than the average (69%) of the top-five countries (by total number of COVID-19 confirmed cases), representing more than 1.6 million [3] recovered cases in absolute terms. This was testimony to the technological advances applied at scale against the backdrop of lockdown measures. Furthermore, research advances, in the form of scaling-up of convalescent plasma therapy, where blood from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 is given to other infected individuals to help them recover [47] , gave an impetus to the treatment process.

Bench-marking the recovery rate from COVID-19 in India versus the top-five COVID-19 affected countries (2020).

Technological advances can be categorised into three broad categories based on testing, tracing and treatment. As shown in Table 7 , many of the technological initiatives were ‘significant’ in type. The introduction of the world's cheapest COVID-19 testing kit in India was expected to change the paradigm of testing in the country both in terms of scale and cost. Lower cost kits facilitate more tests per million population. Existing drugs and alternative therapies [ 48 , 49 ], produced encouraging results. Furthermore, India increased its manufacturing capacity to 0.45 million PPE coveralls (second-largest manufacturer in the world) and 0.20 million N-95 masks every day, which means better availability of medical coveralls in the future [50] . The launch of the Aarogya Setu app at an all India level for contact tracing was followed by the launch of specialized apps at the state level to fill in the information gap in terms of occupancy and availability of hospital beds, ICUs and ventilators for patients with COVID-19 [51] , [52] , [53] .

Technological initiatives initiated in response to COVID-19 (pre-COVID-19 peak).

While technology on one hand eased the hospitalisation process of patients with COVID-19, initiatives like the launch of telemedicine units for home-quarantined cases (asymptomatic) provided a digital platform for a COVID-19 treatment [55] , thereby reducing the burden on the health infrastructure. Further, the success of policy and technological interventions applied together was evident in the form of a substantial reduction in the number of new COVID-19 infections reported from Asia's largest slum (Dharavi) in the state of Maharashtra, the financial capital of India [56] . Here, on the technological front, both swab and blood tests of suspected cases were conducted, while on the policy front an ‘Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme’ was activated, which involved healthcare workers going door to door to test suspected cases and their family members.

Evolution of testing criteria

Initially, the testing protocol was limited to symptomatic international passengers entering India, contact history with a positive case, and symptomatic healthcare workers. However, from April onwards people in infection hotspots with symptoms of cold, cough and fever; individuals who participated in large gatherings; and patients with severe acute respiratory illness could be tested. It was reported that nearly 80% of confirmed cases were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms [57] . A revised discharge policy (10 days) was recommended compared with the initial 14 days standard from symptom onset and no fever for three days, to reduce the pressure on medical infrastructure [58] .

Evolution of testing methods

During the early phases of the COVID-19 outbreak, public hospitals used the RT-PCR method, which gave results of high accuracy but with a turnaround time of 24 hours. The scale of testing increased as private laboratories began performing tests and using the antibody blood test, which gave results in less than 30 minutes, but with an accuracy as low as 50%. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) issued guidelines for unconfirmed cases with negative results from antigen tests to have RT-PCR done; in Delhi alone less than 1% of those with negative antigen results received an RT-PCR test [32] . As of 4 August 2020, 30% of all tests being conducted were antigen tests [59] . The COVID-19 positivity rate may not have given a clear picture of the scale of the outbreak due to large numbers of false negatives. This hindered contact tracing and may have acted as a catalyst for new cases. Furthermore, India's testing rate continues to be one of the lowest in the world [60] . Despite a manufacturing capacity of 4.87 million test kits per day, the country could only conduct 0.7 million tests per day as of 12 August 2020. This could be attributed to the fact that the state governments paid private laboratories in the range of almost half of the price cap set by ICMR [61] . More tests per million people did not necessarily result in more positive cases being detected (see Table 8 ) [62] . For example, in Rajasthan and Bihar, more positive cases per 100 tests were found in Bihar than Rajasthan, even though more tests per million people were conducted in Rajasthan.

Variation in the scale of testing across states around 12 August 2020.

Healthcare system response data

Demand-side versus supply-side scenario.

With increased testing capacity, infrastructure and human resources, India equipped itself to handle the expected surge in cases during the later phases of lockdown. In addition to public–private partnerships (PPPs) in the health sector, the government augmented health infrastructure through the creation of dedicated COVID-19 facilities. As shown in Fig. 10 [63] , admission to a dedicated COVID-19 facility was based on the clinically assessed medical condition of a patient, as the three types of facilities were equipped with different medical infrastructure. Table 9 [64] provides information regarding the medical infrastructure in these facilities. However, estimating the percentage increase in medical infrastructure pre- and post COVID-19 remains a challenge, due to the absence of data regarding new infrastructure that has been built and existing private facilities that were reserved as COVID-19 wards.

Infrastructure dedicated to COVID-19.

Medical infrastructure in dedicated COVID-19 facilities.

Medicines and medical services

All elective surgeries were curtailed during phases 1 and 2 of the lockdown, with only life-saving surgeries taking place from 21 March 2020 [65] . Patients dealing with other ailments were encouraged to use telemedicine services, as outpatient departments were closed [66] . However, lockdown 4 included the opening of outpatient services for all ailments.

Economic and financial fluctuations

Fiscal value of human lives lost to covid-19.

Subsequent lockdown phases since the start of the pandemic have had an adverse impact on the Indian economy. Table 10 [67] shows an approximation of the total fiscal value (TFV) of human lives lost in India due to COVID-19 as USD 815 million (4% rate) and USD 703 million (6% rate) at the prevailing interest rates in India (to 12 August 2020). As shown in Eq. (1 ), the discounted fiscal value (DFV) for a particular age group has been calculated as the product of non-health GDP per capita (NGDPC), discounted years of life lost (DISYLL), and the number of deaths in the age group due to COVID-19 [67] . NGDPC has been calculated as the difference between GDP per capita and current health expenditure (CHE). Years of life lost (YLL) for each age group have been estimated as the difference between the life expectancy at birth (LE) and the average age at death from COVID-19 [56] . The discount factor 1/(1+r) k in Eq. (1 ) has been used to calculate DISYLL, where r is an interest rate that measures the opportunity cost of lost earnings. The summation ( Eq. (1 )) used k = 1 as the first year of life lost and k = n as the final year of the total number of YLL per case of COVID-19 within an age group. The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in a particular age group (N) has been approximated as a percentage of the total number of deaths (TD) due to COVID-19 (see Fig. 7 ). The fiscal value of life lost across the age groups in Table 10 was summed up, and finally the average monetary value per human life lost was calculated as total fiscal value divided by TD. Also, the average monetary value per human life lost from COVID-19 in India was found to be sensitive to the discount rate [67] .

Fiscal valuation of life lost due to COVID-19 with 2020 as the base year.

Data used: TD around 12 August 2020 = 47,138 [3] , GDP per capita (2018) [5] , CHE (2017) [5] .

International trade and sectoral impact

The World Bank downgraded India's growth for the fiscal year 2021 [68] . However, the International Monetary Fund's GDP growth projection (2021–22) for the country (1.9%) was the highest among the G20 nations [69] , although the pandemic in India began when its GDP had already been on a downward trajectory since Q2 2018–19 and experienced a new low (4.5%) in Q2 2019–20 (see Fig. 11 ) [ 70 , 71 ]. The impact of any economic downturn will depend on the duration and severity of the pandemic. In an optimistic scenario, the recovery could be V-shaped, both in GDP growth and inflation, compared with a U-shaped recovery in an extended recovery scenario.

Real GDP growth percentage (constant 2011–12 prices).

Credit rating agencies have downgraded India's growth for the fiscal year 2021 [ 72 , 73 ]. Exports and imports form a crucial component of GDP. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced India's exports by 34.6% and 60.28% in March and April, respectively. The trade deficit narrowed to USD 9.76 billion in March 2020 [74] , which was further aggravated by a sharp depreciation of the rupee against the dollar (INR 75 per USD on 20 March) [70] . Many sectors were expected to experience overall negative growth [73] , especially import-driven sectors such as the automotive industry [75] . The Indian aviation industry (the world's third-largest domestic aviation market) [76] was near to collapse following the travel bans; however, it gradually started to revive with the opening up of domestic flights. Severe liquidity problems were experienced by the hospitality industry (airlines, hotels and restaurants). Amidst this economic uncertainty and a collapsing growth rate, the RBI slashed repo rates to provide stimulus to the economy, increase liquidity in the market and possibly reduce the cost of financing for the corporate sector. Despite these efforts, the growing number of COVID-19 cases casts a shadow on the recovery of the economy in the near future.

Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on any country and analysing the impact of interventions that were intended to contain it requires several critical considerations at the present (in addition to a lot more data in the future to substantiate any findings, in the absence of any precedents). One needs to appreciate the size of a nation; consider its population, the socio-economic fabric of which can support or cripple any policy intervention; have a thorough grasp of how good or bad its healthcare system was in the first place; have the right definition of success criteria in line with the extent of the spread of the virus; and possess the ability to identify relevant and useful data.

COVID-19 vis a vis the Indian context

In a developing country such as India, with the world's second-highest population, fifth-largest economy, the fastest-growing major economy [77] , and one of the lowest healthcare expenditures per capita, it is easy to see how a disaster such as the COVID-19 pandemic would be catastrophic for the nation, both in terms of lives and livelihoods. Even the most earnest, massive, and unprecedented policy and technological interventions would be at best limited in their ability to solve the prevailing problems. Despite this, the country has fared much better than many other developing countries in managing the health impact of the crisis so far.

Health impact

Our study found that the high recovery rate from COVID-19 in India was a result of significant technological interventions, effective mitigation policies implemented in a phased manner by the government, complemented by the demographic dividend. However, any initial success of handling the pandemic will not last without continuous and reliable testing followed by contact tracing [78] . For instance, the state of Kerala, which was initially leading the country's war against the pandemic, later showed a significant drop in recovery rates due to a resurgence in confirmed cases [79] . With stark variations in the numbers of tests as well as COVID-19 trends across the states of India, they were uniquely equipped to handle the pandemic.

While increased testing has been proposed as the most potent solution to COVID-19 globally, it is important to understand country-specific nuances around how testing is being carried out and how it should be done, to arrive at the right solution for India. An increased capacity to manufacture testing kits in India is commendable but will only make a difference to the overall spread of the pandemic if it aligns with the number of tests conducted daily, dependent on the availability of healthcare services. Again, variations in COVID-19 tests conducted to accelerate national level testing should be based on the reliability of results, so as not to slow down contact tracing efforts.

Economic impact

On the economic side, high unemployment during the nationwide lockdown, instead of an initial lockdown policy based on disease spread within states [80] , complemented by paid-for testing and expensive treatment for COVID-19 in private facilities, have only exacerbated the existing state of economic inequity [81] . On the surface, while the resumption of economic activity amid the pandemic looks set to lead to economic recovery, the economic modelling used shows that the average monetary value per human life lost from COVID-19 in India translates to 7.09–8.22-fold of the country's GDP per capita.

Conclusions and policy implications

The spread of COVID-19 in India has tested the country's pandemic preparedness in terms of its health infrastructure, technological capabilities and policy interventions. The initial impact of a timely and one of the most stringent lockdown policies was observed to slow the spread of the virus. At the same time, it helped the country to prepare critical medical infrastructure, human resources and technological advances. The severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in India has been relatively low compared with many other developing countries in terms of case fatality and recovery rates. However, the crisis has augmented the pre-existing risks of economic slowdown, while the underfunded public healthcare system has played havoc with the pandemic management strategy in the country. Overall, the pandemic has been a wake-up call and India is now consciously thinking about embracing long-term measures to develop a responsive, sustainable and robust healthcare system, to which PPPs and the manufacturing sector might make significant contributions.

Limitations of the study and scope of future work

Due to limitations of data relating to existing and augmented infrastructure facilities in terms of hospitals, beds and ventilators, a comparison of pre- and post-COVID-19 infrastructure is missing. Case fatality rate analysis based on co-morbidities is missing due to insufficient availability of secondary data. Future work could include recommendations for possible revisions to the existing population-level policy, taking a cue from other countries. This could help ensure comparable infrastructure and resources to face future pandemics.

Ethical approval

Not required.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Isha Goel: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Seema Sharma: Supervision. Smita Kashiramka: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to Avinav Goel and Mohd. Ahmad Khalid.

LNG Exports and US Fossil Fuel Use

In less than a decade, the United States has gone from being a net importer of liquified natural gas (LNG) to the world’s largest exporter. This change resulted from two developments: the fracking revolution and the construction of a number of LNG export terminals. A decade ago, the US natural gas market was separate from the world market. Because export capacity was limited, rising domestic production due to fracking sharply reduced prices. Today, domestic and global markets are integrated. This has driven up the domestic gas price and put upward pressure on domestic coal prices because coal and gas are substitutes for power generation. Higher prices have reduced domestic demand for both fossil fuels in much the same way a carbon tax would.

In The Market and Climate Implications of US LNG Exports (NBER Working Paper 32228), James H. Stock and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins explain that the US has gone through four distinct stages in its transformation from natural gas importer to exporter. In the first, from the 1990s to around 2006, gas and oil competed to power the steam boiler generators that utilities were bringing on line to replace aging coal-fired plants. This competition helped to align the prices of coal, gas, and oil. The surge in fracked gas, which started in the mid-2000s, initiated a second, transitory stage in which gas prices fell; oil could no longer compete in the electricity-generation business. The correlation between oil and gas prices declined. The third phase began in 2010, when fracked gas flooded the domestic market, and US gas prices became disconnected from both oil and international gas prices. Finally, when the first LNG export facility opened in 2016, the US entered the fourth and current stage. Expanding gas exports mopped up excess supplies, and domestic gas prices recoupled with oil and international gas prices.

In 2005, the US imported roughly 15 percent of the gas it consumed. By 2017, it was a net exporter and, by 2023, the world’s largest exporter. In 2005, coal generated half of the nation’s electricity. By 2020, that share was down to 19 percent, largely due to the replacement of coal-fired generation with generation from gas-powered units.

The surge in LNG exports has buoyed domestic gas and coal prices, reducing domestic consumption. The researchers estimate domestic gas prices through 2030 would be approximately 54 percent higher relative to a scenario without the export-driven recoupling to global prices. The effect of that price increase is comparable to that of imposing a $30 per metric ton carbon tax on domestic natural gas combustion. Domestic coal prices would be about 64 percent higher in 2030 under recoupling because of their connection to domestic gas prices. That amounts to about a $20 per metric ton carbon tax in terms of impact on demand.

The researchers point out that the reconnection of US gas and coal prices to international energy markets has important implications for greenhouse gas emissions. They calculate that by 2030, if gas markets remain integrated and current trends continue, the US power-generation sector will emit 145 million fewer metric tons of CO 2 than it would have absent integration. This is about a one-third reduction in the CO 2 emissions from the power sector, mostly due to the nation switching from fossil fuels to non-fossil alternatives.

— Laurent Belsie

This research was supported by the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability.

Researchers

NBER periodicals and newsletters may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution.

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

© 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research. Periodical content may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution.

India’s Missing Female Youth Labour Force: Size, Characteristics and Policy Concern

• Published: 27 June 2024

Cite this article

• Rajshree Bedamatta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8276-006X 1 &
• Mridusmita Bordoloi 1  

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In the 21st International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) convened in October 2023, an amendment to the 19th ICLS resolution of 2013 on labour underutilisation statistics was ratified. It introduces refined measures for assessing labour underutilisation, providing nations with updated guidelines for integrating these measures into their statistical frameworks. Notably, it introduces the concept of the potential labour force , which includes individuals not currently employed, who might be disinclined or unable to seek employment due to various constraints. In our study, we specifically address this segment within the Indian female youth population, referring to them as the "missing labour force". Utilising India's official national datasets—the Employment-Unemployment Survey for 2011–12 and the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) from 2017–18 to 2022–23—we calculate the absolute size of the female youth population comprising the missing (or potential) labour force between 2011–12 and 2022–23. Our analysis delineates the magnitude of this issue, presenting both national and regional dimensions. In 2022–23, approximately 114.6 million females aged 15 to 35, were missing from the labour market, accounting for 48% of the total female youth population in India. Acknowledging the current challenges in the labour market, particularly the high rates of informality and unemployment among female youth, this paper proposes strategic interventions and policy recommendations aimed at integration of the missing female youth labour force into employment sectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

COVID-19 Lockdowns and Female Employment: Evidence from the Philippines

Youth Employment and Unemployment in India: Issues and Challenges

Tripartite Responses to Young Workers and Precarious Employment in the European Union

Source: ‘Population Projections for India and States 2011–2036', Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections, July 2020, National Commission on Population, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Available online at: https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Population%20Projection%20Report%202011-2036%20-%20upload_compressed_0.pdf .

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf .

https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/youth/ .

Sustainable Development Goal 8: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal8 .

APU. 2019. State of working India. Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University. Retrieved from https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu .

Bloom, D., D. Canning, G. Fink, and J. Finlay. 2009. Fertility, female labor force participation, and the demographic dividend. Journal of Economic Growth 14: 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-009-9039-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bordoloi, M., and R. Bedamatta. 2022. Gender gap in the labour market of India’s North-East: 2011–12 to 2019–20. Indian Journal of Labour Economics. 65: 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00414-5 .

Boruah, C., and D. Das. 2022. Female labour force participation rates in Assam: Trends, composition and determinants. Indian Journal of Human Development 16 (1): 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/09737030221074557 .

Braunstein, E. 2015. Economic growth and social reproduction. UN Women. https://doi.org/10.18356/5be883c5-en .

Costagliola, A. 2021. Labor participation and gender inequalities in India: Traditional gender norms in india and the decline in the labor force participation rate (LFPR). The Indian Journal of Labour Economics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-021-00329-7 .

Deshpande, A., and J. Singh. 2021. Dropping out, being pushed out or can’t get in? Decoding declining labour force participation of Indian women. Discussion Paper Series(IZA DP No. 14639). IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved from https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14639/dropping-out-being-pushed-out-or-cant-get-in-decoding-declining-labour-force-participation-of-indian-women .

Goldin, C. 1994. The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. WORKING PAPER 4707. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4707 .

Golley, J., and R. Tyers. 2012. Emographic dividends, dependencies, and economic growth in China and India. Sian Economic Papers 11 (3): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1162/ASEP-a-00156 .

ILO. 2013a. Report of the conference: 19th international conference of labour statisticians. International Labour Office, Department of Statistics. Geneva.

ILO. 2013b. Decent work indicators: Guidelines for producers and users of statistical and legal framework indicators: ILO manual: Second version . Geneva: International Labour Office.

Google Scholar  

ILO. 2022. Global Employment Trends for Youth 2022: Investing in transforming futures for young people. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Retrieved fro https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-dcomm/-publ/documents/publication/wcms_853321.pdf .

ILO. 2023. Resolution to amend the 19th ICLS resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization. 21st International Conference of Labour Statisticians. International Labour Office, Department of Statistics. Geneva. Retrieved from https://webapps.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_230304.pdf .

Jajoria, D., and M. Jatav. 2020. Is Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017–18 comparable with employment–unemployment survey, 2011–12? lV . Economic and Political Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2020_55/3/CM_LV_3_180120_Deepika_Jajoria.pdf .

Kannan, K., and G. Raveendran. 2012. Counting and profiling the missing labour force. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (6): 77–80.

Klasen, S., and F. Lamanna. 2009. The impact of gender inequality in education and employment on economic growth: New evidence for a panel of countries. Feminist Economics 15 (3): 91–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700902893106 .

Lahoti, R., and H. Swaminathan. 2016. Economic development and women’s labor force participation in India. Feminist Economics 22 (2): 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1066022 .

MoE. 2020. All India Survey of Higher Education, 2019–20. Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of India. Retrieved from https://aishe.gov.in/aishe/viewDocument.action;jsessionid=C48D6A5D0ED8C44833EDDAE41056F044?documentId=277 .

Neetha, N. 2020b. exploring paid and unpaid work dichotomy. In P. Jha, A. Kumar, & Y. Mishra (Eds.), Labouring Women: Issues and Challenges in Contemporary India. India: Orient BlackSwan.

Neetha, N. 2020a. Empowered or entangled: Agency and choice in women’s employment in India. South Asian Survey 27 (2): 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971523120947282 .

Palriwala, R., and N. Neetha. 2011. Stratified familialism: The care regime in India through the lens of childcare. Dev Change . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01717.x .

Rangarajan, C., P. Kaul, and Seema. 2011. Where is the missing labour force? Economic and Political Weekly 46 (39): 68–72.

Sangappa, J., and L. Kavle. 2010. Gender discrimination: Women’s work and autonomy. The Indian Journal of Political Science 71: 425–437.

Swaminathan, M. 2020. Time-Use Survey report 2019: What do we learn about rural women? Review of Agrarian Studies . https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.311107 .

Download references

The authors have not received funding from any source for this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the Indian Society of Labour Economics, Arunachal Pradesh, India. The authors thank the chair and participants for their comments which greatly helped in revising the paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India

Rajshree Bedamatta & Mridusmita Bordoloi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajshree Bedamatta .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bedamatta, R., Bordoloi, M. India’s Missing Female Youth Labour Force: Size, Characteristics and Policy Concern. Ind. J. Labour Econ. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-024-00493-6

Download citation

Accepted : 22 May 2024

Published : 27 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-024-00493-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Female youth labour force
• labour underutilisation
• potential labour force
• size of labour force

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Debate Fact Check: Biden and Trump on the Economy, Immigration and Foreign Policy

By The New York Times

• Share full article

President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump faced off on Thursday in the first presidential debate of the general election. We examined their policy claims, personal attacks and their records in office.

Ana Swanson

“Economists say that’s going to cost the average American $2,500 a year or more.”

— President Biden on Mr. Trump’s proposal to increase tariffs on most American imports by 10 percent

This is exaggerated.

Estimates of the impact of an overall 10 percent tariff vary, but one recent analysis by the right-leaning American Action Forum estimated that a 10 percent tariff could impose additional annual costs of up to $2,350 per American household.

Another analysis by the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that if Mr. Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on all goods and a 60 percent tariff on China, it would cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in increased expenses each year.

“He wants to raise your taxes by four times.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump

Many elements of the 2017 tax cut that Mr. Trump signed into law will expire in 2025, and Mr. Biden has proposed some tax increases on high-income earners and corporations. But this does not amount to a quadrupling of taxes.

The 2017 tax cut is expected to reduce the average tax rate by 1.4 percent in 2025, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Most in the top 5 percent of income would see the greatest change, by 2.4 percent.

Mr. Biden has also consistently said that he does not support raising taxes on people making under $400,000 a year and, in his latest budget, proposed extending tax cuts for those making under that threshold. Mr. Biden’s proposals would increase the average tax rate by about 1.9 percent, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis . The top 0.1 percent would see the biggest increase, of about 13.9 percent, while the low-income filers would see a reduction in taxes. That is no where near the 300 percent increase Mr. Trump warned of.

Advertisement

Julian E. Barnes

“I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. The secretary general of NATO said Trump did the most incredible job ever.”

This needs context..

Mr. Trump made increasing European military spending a corner stone of his presidency, and it did rise during his administration.

But more countries raised their defense spending during the Biden administration. According to NATO report , in 2020, the final year of the Trump administration, military spending rose 4.6 percent and nine countries met the commitment to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.

This year, NATO estimated defense spending went up 17.9 percent and 23 of the 32 allies met their financial commitments. While the Biden administration pressed for more European spending, much of the spending has been a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Jim Tankersley

“But Social Security, he’s destroying it because millions of people are pouring into our country and they are putting them onto Social Security.”

Mr. Trump has this backward. Undocumented workers often pay taxes that help fund Social Security. But, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office once noted , “most unauthorized immigrants are prohibited from receiving many of the benefits that the federal government provides through Social Security and such need-based programs as food stamps, Medicaid (other than emergency services) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”

“Nancy Pelosi, if you just watched the news from two days ago on tape to her daughter who’s a documentary filmmaker, or they say what she’s saying, ‘Oh, no, it’s my responsibility. I was responsible for this.’ Because I offered them 10,000 soldiers are National Guard. And she turned them down.”

This is misleading..

Mr. Trump is distorting what Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, said. Ms. Pelosi did not admit to turning down National Guard troops. She does not have such authority.

The Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee recently released a short video captured by Alexandra Pelosi, Ms. Pelosi’s daughter and a documentary filmmaker, turned over to congressional investigators of the former speaker at the time during the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. The full footage has not been publicly released.

The video begins with Ms. Pelosi speaking about guidance to the Capitol Police: “We asked them to put out a piece of paper saying, ‘Go through the tunnel. Don’t go outside.’ They say they’ve got stuff, but they can’t tell us what it is. It’s too — we don’t want the other side to know. We have responsibility, Terry, we didn’t have accountability for what was going on there.”

When the person Ms. Pelosi was addressing responded, “they thought they had sufficient resources,” Ms. Pelosi cut her off. “It’s not a question of sufficient,” the speaker said, “they don’t know. They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them prepare for me, because it’s stupid because we’re in a situation like this.”

Politico reviewed roughly 45 minutes of footage and concluded that it “does not bolster G.O.P. claims” of Ms. Pelosi being at fault.

Lisa Friedman

“The Paris accord was going to cost us $1 trillion and China, nothing, and Russia, nothing, and India, nothing.”

This is misleading ..

Under the Paris agreement, a voluntary global climate accord, wealthier nations agreed to help poor countries most threatened by climate change. Under President Biden, the United States has pledged $11.4 billion annually by 2024 to assist vulnerable countries in developing clean energy and preparing for the consequences of climate change.

China also contributes to developing countries, albeit not through the U.N., but through a separate “South-South” cooperation fund. The United States, under the Biden administration, has been pressuring China to donate more.

Jeanna Smialek

“You look at the cost of food, where it’s doubled and tripled and quadrupled.”

Grocery prices are up significantly since early 2021, but they have not doubled, tripled or quadrupled overall because of inflation. The “food at home” inflation index that tracks grocery prices is up about 20 percent since then, for instance.

Noah Weiland

“I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.”

Mr. Trump established a voluntary $35-per-month cap on insulin costs for Medicare beneficiaries, something only a limited number of Medicare plans participated in.

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed by President Biden in 2022, required plans to cap insulin costs at $35 each month, increasing the number of Medicare beneficiaries who would be covered by the policy. Mr. Biden has pushed to make the cap applicable to people with commercial insurance, a provision that was removed from the Inflation Reduction Act before it became law.

Coral Davenport

“During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever.”

Mr. Trump responded to a question about what he might do in response to climate change by saying that his administration rolled back nearly 100 environmental regulations, including protections on clean air and clean water.

In terms of numbers, the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions stayed at roughly the same levels from 2017, the first year of Mr. Trump’s administration, through 2019, before declining sharply in 2020 due to the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on travel and economic activity.

Angelo Fichera

“And what he’s done to the Black population is horrible, including the fact that for 10 years he called them superpredators.”

Mr. Trump has previously made this claim about Mr. Biden, including at an October 2020 debate . But it was Mr. Trump’s 2016 political rival, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, who once used that term — not Mr. Biden.

In 1996, Ms. Clinton, then the first lady, said at a campaign event: “They are often connected to big drug cartels; they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Ms. Clinton spoke at that event in support of a 1994 crime bill that Mr. Biden had also supported at the time — and that experts later found contributed to the mass incarceration that hurt Black communities. Mr. Biden apologized in 2019 for parts of his anti-crime legislation, but also tried to downplay his involvement.

“Even from a medical standpoint, right to try: where we can try space-age materials instead of going to Asia or going to Europe and trying to get, when you’re terminally ill, now you can go and you can get something, you sign a document. They’ve been trying to get it for 42 years. But you know, what we did for the military was incredible, choice for our soldiers, where our soldiers, instead of waiting for three months to see a doctor, can go out and get themselves fixed up and readied up, and take care of themselves. And they’re living and that’s why I had the highest approval rating of the history of the V.A.”

The Veterans Choice health care program was created in 2014 ; Mr. Trump signed an update to that law. Similarly, the “right to try” law of 2018 allows terminally ill patients to seek access to experimental medicine that is not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but a similar program has been in place since the 1970s.

“The only jobs he created are for illegal immigrants.”

Official estimates of employment do not support Mr. Trump’s statement. And estimates from various groups show that the population of unauthorized immigrants has grown in recent years, but not nearly enough to take all the jobs created under President Biden.

The economy has added more than 15 million jobs since January 2021. Two groups that advocate lower levels of migration and stricter border security have estimated that there are 2.3 million to 2.5 million more unauthorized immigrants in 2023 than in 2020.

Overall, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 29.9 million foreign-born workers — both authorized and unauthorized — and 131.1 million native-born workers were employed in 2023. That is an increase of 5.1 million in employed foreign-born workers and 8.1 million native-born workers since 2020 .

“No indictments, no political opponents stuff, because it’s the only way he thinks he can win.”

This lacks evidence..

Mr. Trump has claimed repeatedly that his numerous legal woes were orchestrated by President Biden. Of the four criminal cases against Mr. Trump, two were brought by state or local prosecutors, meaning that the Justice Department itself has no control over them.

The other two criminal cases against Mr. Trump are overseen by a special counsel, whom Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. There is no evidence that Mr. Biden is personally directing the cases against his political opponent. Mr. Biden has publicly emphasized the independence of the Justice Department.

“It’s not only the 18 million people that I believe is even low because they, the gotaways — they don’t even talk about gotaways.”

It is impossible to know the exact number of migrants that have entered the United States, but Mr. Trump’s estimate is hyperbolic.

Since February 2021, the first full month of Mr. Biden’s presidency, Customs and Border Protection has recorded 9.6 million migrant encounters nationwide , including about 7.9 million at the southwestern border. This does not necessarily mean that nearly 10 million migrants have attempted to enter the country, as one migrant can be encountered multiple times. Government and independent analyses have estimated that repeat offenders account for a quarter to more than half of all encounters.

Many other migrants have evaded capture, but the exact number is unclear. Republicans have previously cited one estimate obtained by Fox News: about 1.6 million migrants since 2021.

But more than four million migrants have also been turned away or deported under Mr. Biden. About three million were quickly expelled under a public health law, were placed into “expedited removal” proceedings or left voluntarily.

“We have the largest deficit with China.”

The U.S. trade deficit with China in goods and services was $252 billion last year, the lowest level since 2009.

Kenneth P. Vogel

“He gets paid by China.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Trump was referring to President Biden and appeared to be nodding to payments from a company called C.E.F.C. China Energy and its affiliates to entities associated with Mr. Biden’s son Hunter and his brother James.

No evidence has emerged that any portion of these payments, which started after Mr. Biden left the vice presidency, went to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Ben Protess

“He basically went after his political opponent because he thought it was going to damage me.”

Mr. Trump’s claim that President Biden orchestrated his conviction has no basis in fact. The investigation began while Mr. Trump, not Mr. Biden, was president. The case was brought by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a local Democrat who does not answer to Mr. Biden’s administration. And Mr. Trump was convicted by a jury of 12 New Yorkers.

“He caused this inflation.”

Independent economic research has found that government stimulus spending approved by both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden contributed to the soaring inflation the nation experienced in the first two years of Mr. Biden’s presidency. But no evidence blames government spending, by Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, for the majority of the inflation the country experienced.

A 2023 research paper by the economists Ben S. Bernanke and Olivier Blanchard found “most of the rise in inflation in 2021 and 2022 was driven by developments that directly raised prices rather than wages, including sharp increases in global commodity prices and sectoral price spikes driven by a combination of pandemic-induced kinks in supply chains and a huge shift in demand during the pandemic to goods from services.”

“They moved a high-ranking official, a D.O.J., into the Manhattan D.A.’s office to start that case.”

Mr. Trump regularly claims that a Justice Department official from the Biden administration was the driving force behind his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan. In fact, the investigation into Mr. Trump had begun years before that former Justice Department official even joined the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

The former official was one of several prosecutors to work on the case, which recently ended with Mr. Trump’s conviction on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. But the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, was responsible for bringing the case.

Hamed Aleaziz

“What I’ve done, since I’ve changed the law, what’s happened? I’ve changed it in a way that now you’re in a situation where there are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally. It’s better than when he left office.”

— President Biden

The number of daily encounters at the southern border has dropped 40 percent since a Biden administration measure essentially banning asylum took effect in early June, but border crossings were generally lower during the Trump administration.

“Black unemployment is the lowest level it’s been in a long, long time.”

Unemployment is relatively low for Black workers today by historical standards, although that was also true before the onset of the pandemic in 2019.

Miriam Jordan

“And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and killing our citizens at a level we’ve never — we call it migrant crime. I’d call it Biden-migrant crime.”

While there have been highly publicized cases of Americans killed by undocumented immigrants, these cases do not represent a broader trend. Numerous studies have found that immigration does not push up crime rates. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and less likely to be incarcerated than American citizens.

“We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world, not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere, all over the world. They’re pouring in. And this guy just left it open.”

The number of people trying to illegally cross the southern border whose names match those on the United States’ terrorist watch list has indeed risen in recent years . Still, those numbers are a very small percentage of total Border Patrol encounters — 0.0083 percent in the 2023 fiscal year between the northern and southern border — and what that means in terms of the terrorist threat to the United States is not entirely clear.

The watch list includes names of known and suspected terrorists, as well as people affiliated with them; the database has not been without criticism for how it is managed.

In the 2023 fiscal year, 169 noncitizens whose names appeared on the list tried to illegally cross the southern border — up from three such encounters in the 2020 fiscal year — according to Customs and Border Protection statistics . So far in the 2024 fiscal year, there have been 90 instances of those encounters. (More people with names appearing on the list have presented at legal ports of entry, especially at the northern border.)

There is no record of a terrorist attack committed on American soil by an immigrant who crossed the southern border illegally.

“He did nothing to stop it. In fact, I think he encouraged Russia from going in.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump, referring to the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s preparation to invade Ukraine

This is false.

The Biden administration sent William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, to Russia in November 2021 to tell President Vladimir V. Putin that U.S. intelligence knew of his plans to invade Ukraine and warn him not to invade. President Biden also declassified intelligence about Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine in an effort to dissuade Russia from invading and rally allied support for Ukraine.

Mr. Biden threatened — and wound up imposing — vast economic sanctions against Russia’s economy and political leadership.

“I made great trade deals with the European nations.”

Mr. Trump engaged in trade negotiations with the European Union during his presidency and the talks culminated in a limited agreement in August 2020. That deal was much smaller than what people typically refer to as a trade deal, and it did not shift the balance of trade in the United States’ favor. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services with the European Union grew steadily over Mr. Trump’s term to $146 billion in 2021 when he left office, up from $89 billion in 2017.

“He decided to open up our border.”

The number of migrants who have crossed the border illegally has skyrocketed under the Biden administration. Migrants have come to the southern border for a number of reasons, including fleeing collapsing governments, and the Biden administration initially took a softer tone on the border, including rolling back some policies set by Mr. Trump.

But President Biden kept in place a Trump-era policy to turn back migrants quickly at the southern border after he took over.

And in the last year, the Biden administration has put in place restrictions on asylum, including a recent effort to ban it for people who cross illegally.

“51 intelligence agents said that the laptop was Russia disinformation. It wasn’t. That came from his son Hunter. It wasn’t Russia disinformation.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump, on Hunter Biden’s recovered computer.

This needs more context.

Mr. Trump is referring to efforts by President Biden’s allies to cast doubt on the authenticity of the contents of a laptop belonging to his son, Hunter Biden, that was left at a repair shop in Wilmington, Del.

The laptop contained a cache of files that shed light on Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, as well as embarrassing information about his behavior during a time when he was in the throes of addiction. The contents of the laptop were provided in 2020 to Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was serving as Mr. Trump’s lawyer. Mr. Giuliani, in turn, provided the contents to The New York Post, which published the first in a series of articles relying on material from the laptop on Oct. 14, 2020, less than a month before the presidential election.

The story prompted immediate backlash. Prompted by outreach from Antony J. Blinken, who was then serving as a Biden campaign adviser, a group of former intelligence officials drafted and signed a letter calling into question the underlying files, claiming they had “the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” While the letter stopped short of claiming Russian involvement, emails subsequently released by House Republicans show that the people behind it wanted to create the impression that “the Russians are interfering.”

A few days later, at a presidential debate with Mr. Trump, Joseph R. Biden Jr. cited the letter as evidence that the laptop was “a Russian plant” and “a bunch of garbage.”

Nearly three years later, no evidence has emerged to support assertions that Russia was involved in the laptop’s contents or its dissemination, and many of the emails contained on it have been authenticated by the news media through forensic analysis and interviews .

David E. Sanger

“Iran was broke with me. I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke, they had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything, no money for terror.”

Even under sanctions that were imposed by the Trump administration, Iran’s economy plugged along. It wasn’t strong, but it wasn’t broke, and it kept trading with many nations. Mr. Trump made no mention of the fact that his withdrawal from an Obama-era nuclear deal freed Iran to resume nuclear production.

Michael Crowley

“We’re no longer respected as a country. They don’t respect our leadership. They don’t respect the United States anymore.”

The concept of international “respect” can be subjective, but what hard data exists shows that President Biden enjoys more approval overseas than does Mr. Trump.

The latest international poll conducted by the Pew Research Center , released earlier this month, found that “Biden is viewed more positively than his rival.” In a poll of citizens in 34 countries, 43 percent said they have confidence in Mr. Biden “to do the right thing regarding world affairs,” while just 28 percent said the same thing about Mr. Trump. In 24 of those countries, Pew found, Mr. Biden rated at least five points higher than did Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump fared better in only two: Tunisia and Hungary.

Kate Zernike

“They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, ninth month, even after birth.”

Mr. Trump was describing the Biden administration’s approach to abortion policy.

Abortion “after birth” would be infanticide, which is illegal in every state. And abortions late in pregnancy are very rare: In 2021, less than 1 percent of abortions happened after 21 weeks’ gestation, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics collected from state and other health agencies. More than 90 percent of abortions happened within 13 weeks of pregnancy, which is dated to the start of a woman’s last monthly period.

“I went to the World War II cemetery — World War I cemetery he refused to go to. He was standing with his four-star general, and he told me he said, ‘I don’t want to go in there because they’re a bunch of losers and suckers.’”

The quotes “losers” and “suckers” originate from an article published in The Atlantic in 2020 about former President Donald J. Trump’s relationship to the military. He continues to dispute the reports.

The article relied on anonymous sources, but many of the accounts have been corroborated by news outlets, including The New York Times , and by John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who was Mr. Trump’s White House chief of staff. Mr. Trump has emphatically denied making the remarks since the Atlantic article was published.

Here is a breakdown of the quotations.

“Just take a look at where they are living. They are living in luxury hotels in New York City and other places.”

Tens of thousands of migrants who crossed the border into the United States were offered free bus rides to Democratic cities under a program started by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas in an attempt to spread the burden of the large influx. Some cities, like New York and Denver, have housed migrants in hotels, especially during the winter months. The migrants were not in luxury hotels.

Elizabeth Dias

“Every legal scholar wanted it that way.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade two years ago

Three Supreme Court justices dissented in the landmark ruling in 2022, and abortion rights remain broadly popular. A majority of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, according to the Pew Research Center . Extensive polling also shows that public opinion increasingly supports legal abortion since the ruling.

Emiliano Rodríguez Mega

“Mexico is working with us to make sure they don’t have the technology to be able to put it together.”

— President Biden on efforts to combat drug trafficking

It was unclear what Mr. Biden meant exactly by this statement. But the United States and Mexican officials indeed have increased their cooperation to counter drug trafficking in recent years.

Mexico, for instance, enacted a new law to detect and punish illicit synthetic drug production, dedicated federal prosecutors to work on fentanyl cases, extradited a fentanyl trafficker, Ovidio Guzmán, to the United States and is expected to acquire scanning technology to screen for fentanyl. The U.S. government has also provided training for Mexican coroners to better identify fentanyl overdoses.

“He wants to get rid of Social Security. He thinks that there’s plenty to cut in Social Security. He’s wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare both times.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed during this campaign to protect Social Security and Medicare. But Mr. Biden and his campaign have at times homed in on select comments in which Mr. Trump appeared to suggest that he would be open to cuts — such as a remark Mr. Trump made during an interview in March — while ignoring clarifications.

Asked about his position on the programs in relation to the national debt, Mr. Trump told CNBC in March: “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.”

Mr. Trump and his campaign quickly clarified , however, that he would not seek to cut the programs. “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare,” Mr. Trump told the conservative website Breitbart . “We’ll have to do it elsewhere. But we’re not going to do anything to hurt them.”

Mr. Trump also said in a video posted to his social media platform last year that “under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.”

Still, Mr. Trump has not outlined a clear plan for keeping the programs solvent.

During his time in office, Mr. Trump did propose some cuts to Medicare — though experts said the cost reductions would not have significantly affected benefits — and to Social Security’s programs for people with disabilities. They were not enacted by Congress.

“He wants to get rid of the A.C.A. again, and they’re going to try again.”

Mr. Trump campaigned in 2016 on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans in Congress failed to do so. Though Mr. Trump continues to criticize the health care law as an expensive “disaster,” he has recently suggested he would improve it rather than repeal the law altogether.

In a January rally in Iowa , Mr. Trump promised “much better health care at a lower price for you, and that will be either working on Obamacare or doing something new.”

“ I’m not running to terminate the ACA ,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media in March, adding that he was running to make the health care law “much, much, much better for far less money.”

Mr. Trump has not released any specific details on what this would entail. On his campaign website, he pledged to “stop all Covid mandates and restore medical freedom, end surprise medical billing, increase fairness through price transparency, and further reduce the cost of prescription drugs and health insurance premiums” and also to protect “patients with pre-existing conditions.”

“They’re taking Black jobs and they’re taking Hispanic jobs. And you haven’t seen it yet.”

Whether or not immigrants depress wages or displace some workers has been examined by economists for decades, and there is no clear conclusion. Indeed, a few studies have shown negative wage effects, particularly on African American workers and other Americans in occupations in which there are many Latino immigrants.

Several studies have found a mutually beneficial relationship between high-skilled immigrants and similarly skilled natives, as well as between low-skilled immigrants and more highly skilled native workers, contributes to higher wages for natives. They have also found that immigrants are an increasingly important part of the U.S. labor force as more Americans age and exit the work force.

Alexandra Berzon

“The fraud and everything else was ridiculous.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump, referring to the 2020 election

The Associated Press combed through potential cases of fraud in battleground states during the 2020 election and came away with 475 possible cases of voter fraud. That is far less than the hundreds of thousands of falsely counted or changed votes claimed by Mr. Trump and his associates and supporters.

It is also a minuscule amount compared with the more than 300,000 votes that separated Mr. Biden from Mr. Trump in the close states of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Michigan.

In addition, independent studies, including from conservative elections legal experts and academics, as well as local, federal and state investigations and audits and judges across the country, have closely examined and dismissed the claims put forth by Mr. Trump and his supporters.

“He allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails, and mental institutions — to come into our country and destroy our country.”

Mr. Trump has not provided any evidence for this claim, and immigration experts have said that they could not corroborate Mr. Trump’s claims .

The Trump campaign has previously cited an article published in September 2022 on Breitbart, a conservative website. One unnamed source told Breitbart that officials believed that an unspecified number of Venezuelan prison inmates were headed for the United States’ southern border with Mexico. (No other news organization or government source has verified this report.) The Trump campaign also pointed to reports warning that Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal gang founded in Venezuela, was growing in the United States.

There is no evidence that “millions” of criminals are infiltrating the southern border. Customs and Border Protection reported apprehending 47 members of Tren de Aragua along the southern border under President Biden.

Abbie VanSickle

“First of all, the Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill, and I agree with the decision to have done that. And I will not block it.”

Mr. Trump is correct that the practical effect of the Supreme Court’s decision was that the justices maintained broad access to the abortion pill. However, the justices did not “approve” the drug. The court declined to rule on the merits of the case.

In a unanimous decision , the court held that the anti-abortion groups lacked a direct stake in the dispute, a requirement to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill, mifepristone.

“More people died under his administration — even though we had largely fixed it — more people died under his administration than our administration, and we were right in the middle of it.”

Around 450,000 people in the United States had died of Covid-19 by the time Mr. Trump left office, less than a year into the pandemic. More than 1.1 million people had died from the virus by this month, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meaning more people did in fact die during Mr. Biden’s first term.

Mr. Biden took office during a winter wave of cases, and the virus continued to change in substantial ways after Mr. Trump left office, spawning new, deadly, highly transmissible variants that remained fatal to many Americans for years to come.

“This is something that everybody wanted.”

Mr. Trump was referring to the Supreme Court’s decision two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans continue to disagree with that decision.

“We have 1,000 trillionaires in America — I mean billionaires in America — and what’s happening, they’re in a situation where they in fact pay 8.2 percent in taxes.”

Mr. Biden is referring to a White House study, released in 2021 , that used a “more comprehensive measure of income” than is currently assessed.

The report in question included gains made in unsold stocks, which are not taxed until the asset is sold. It estimated that the average federal income tax rate paid by the 400 wealthiest families in the United States to be 8.2 percent.

Under the law now, the top 1 percent of earners in the United States are currently estimated to pay an average federal income tax rate of more than 20 percent, according to an analysis published by the Treasury Department in November.

The White House has argued that its report presents a more accurate view of the tax rate paid by the wealthy.

“Not going to drive them higher.”

— Former President Donald J. Trump on whether tariffs would increase prices

Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industries by raising the price of foreign products, and economists anticipate that any increase in tariffs would result in some increase in prices.

Economic studies found that the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese goods during his first term were largely paid by American consumers, rather than Chinese companies. In a recent letter, 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists wrote that there was concern that Trump’s policies, including his plan to impose blanket tariffs on most imports, would reignite inflation.

“He’s destroying Medicare because all of these people are coming in. They’re putting them on Medicare. They’re putting them on Social Security. They’re going to destroy Social Security. This man is going to single-handedly destroy Social Security.”

Unauthorized immigrants actually improve the financial health of both Social Security and Medicare. Federal law bars them from receiving Social Security or Medicare benefits, but they pay into both programs. In a 2013 report, the Social Security Administration estimated that 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants were working and paying Social Security taxes. They contributed about $12 billion to the trust in 2010 and about $100 billion over a decade. A 2016 study estimated that unauthorized immigrants contributed about $35.1 billion to Medicare from 2000 to 2011.

And Mr. Biden has proposed plans to shore up Social Security and has vowed for years not to cut the program. During the 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden proposed increasing taxes on high-income earners to pay for additional Social Security benefits and reduce the program’s financial shortfall. This election cycle, Mr. Biden has also said he would raise taxes on the wealthy, make no cuts to the program and opposes raising the retirement age.

“The economy collapsed, there were no jobs.”

Mr. Biden said that he inherited a broken economy when he took office. While employment collapsed at the onset of the pandemic in 2020, jobs had begun to bounce back rapidly relatively quickly, and the recovery was well underway by the time Mr. Biden took office in early 2021.

“The tax cuts spurred the greatest economy that we’ve ever seen.”

Economic research suggests that the tax cut Mr. Trump signed in 2017 spurred some additional economic growth and income growth, but nowhere close to what Mr. Trump and Republicans promised.

Researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department found in an analysis this year that the cuts delivered wage gains that were “an order of magnitude below” what Trump officials predicted: About $750 per worker per year on average over the long run, compared to promises of $4,000 to $9,000 per worker.

“I was getting out of Afghanistan.”

It is certainly true that Mr. Trump often said, in the 2016 campaign, that he wanted to pull American troops out of Afghanistan. But at the end of his presidency, a small force remained, and while he said on social media that all forces should be home by Christmas 2020, he never executed on that promise. President Biden did pull them out. But it was poorly executed.

“He’s the only president other than Herbert Hoover who’s lost more jobs than he had when he began.”

Mr. Biden is accurate that former President Donald J. Trump is the only president since World War II to leave office with a negative jobs record, but he did not make clear that this occurred, of course, because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Using January 2017 as a base line, when Mr. Trump was inaugurated, there were 145.6 million jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data . When he left in January 2021, there were 142.9 million jobs. That is a decline of 2.7 million jobs, or 1.9 percent.

But before the pandemic took hold, jobs had increased under Mr. Trump’s tenure, from 145.6 million jobs in January 2017 to 152 million jobs in January 2020 — a rise of 6.4 million jobs, or 4.4 percent.

About half of the nearly 22 million jobs lost in early 2020 were recovered before Mr. Trump left office.

The same data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics goes back only to 1939, several years after Mr. Hoover departed the White House in 1933. But Mr. Hoover was president at the start of the Great Depression, and when he left office, nearly a quarter of the labor force was unemployed.

“The jobs went down, and then they bounced back. And he’s taking credit for bounce-back jobs.”

The economy has added more than 15 million jobs since Mr. Biden took office in January 2021, but it is true that some of that has been a bounce back from a sharp drop in employment during the pandemic.

That said, employment has now completely recovered to where it would have been had the pace of hiring that prevailed in the year leading up to the pandemic held steady, and employment growth has remained robust. In fact, the pace of job gains has surprised many economists, regularly beating expectations.

“I gave you the largest cut in history.”

The $1.5 trillion tax cut, enacted in December 2017, ranks below at least half a dozen others by several metrics. The 1981 tax cut enacted under President Ronald Reagan is the largest as a percentage of the economy and by its reduction to federal revenue. The 2012 cut enacted under President Barack Obama amounted to the largest cut in inflation-adjusted dollars: $321 billion a year.

“The economy collapsed. There were no jobs.”

— President Biden, on what he inherited from the Trump administration upon coming into office

While employment collapsed at the onset of the pandemic in 2020, jobs began to bounce back rapidly relatively quickly, and the recovery was well underway by the time President Biden took office in early 2021.

“All he said was, ‘It’s not that serious, just inject a little bleach in your arm.’”

Mr. Trump’s comments, in April 2020, about the efficacy of disinfectants and light as treatments for the coronavirus prompted uproar and confusion . He did not literally instruct people to drink bleach, but raised the suggestion as an “interesting” concept to test out.

At the April 2020 news conference, a member of Mr. Trump’s coronavirus task force said that the virus dies under direct sunlight and that applying bleach in indoor spaces kills the virus in five minutes and isopropyl alcohol in 30 seconds.

Mr. Trump responded: “Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that,” he said.