Staff Reports
Donald Trump didn’t whisper this — he shouted it from the campaign trail and conservatives cheered: after probing, the McDonald’s angle on Kamala Harris’s resume looks shakier than the Democrats’ integrity. For months Democrats have peddled the tale of the “working-class” vice president who slung fries and scooped soft serve, but when push came to shove the story has more holes than a sieve. Hardworking Americans deserve truth, not polished narratives tailored for late-night applause.
Harris has repeatedly told voters she worked at a McDonald’s in Alameda in the summer of 1983, a detail she’s used to humanize her career and burnish her blue-collar bona fides. Reporters have pointed to interviews and campaign statements where she recounts manning the fries and registers as a young college student.
But when the claim was checked, the corporation’s internal messaging made clear it has no personnel records for every position dating back to the early 1980s — a far cry from an outright confirmation and a convenient fig leaf for elites. McDonald’s communications to employees emphasized pride in the brand’s role in American life while noting franchise records from four decades ago are incomplete, not that they had proof Harris worked there.
Independent fact-checkers quickly flagged the political spin: McDonald’s did not issue a public denial that Harris worked there, and claims that the company “officially” said she never did are false. Conservatives should welcome fact checks when they expose exaggeration or ambiguity, but the media’s reflexive defense of Democrat narratives is glaring in this case.
President Trump turned the confusion into a campaign moment — even staging a visit to a McDonald’s fry station to dramatize the question about Harris’s story and show ordinary voters he’s willing to dig. That wasn’t theater-free; it was politics as usual, but effective politics when your opponent’s story crumbles under scrutiny.
Digging deeper, reporters noted the oddity that Harris left the McDonald’s stint off an application she filed in 1987 and that recollections are mostly anecdotal, passed down through friends or family memories rather than payroll ledgers. Voters who’ve earned every paycheck know a job doesn’t have to be Evergreen in someone’s biography, but when it becomes a featured talking point on the campaign trail, it should be backed up with evidence—not similar-sounding reminiscences.
This controversy is not just about a burger flip; it’s about credibility. If Democrats can amplify a career-defining anecdote without documentation, then it’s fair game to demand transparency and respect for the truth from those who ask Americans to trust them with the nation’s future.
Patriots know the difference between a real working-class background and political theater. Whether you like Trump or not, conservative voters smell hypocrisy a mile away, and they’ll remember which side fights for honest storytelling and which side relies on polished myths to win votes.
