So, the State of the Union happened. President Donald Trump gave his version of how things are going. Then came the other version.

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger stepped up to give the Democratic rebuttal late Tuesday, and she didn't pull any punches. Her opening line set the tone: "We did not hear the truth..." What followed was a 13-minute counter-narrative that felt like a different movie entirely from Trump's nearly two-hour address.

Speaking from Colonial Williamsburg, she posed some direct questions to the American people. "Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?" It was a pretty clear framing device: the president's speech versus your actual life.

The Affordability Argument

Spanberger, who made history as Virginia's first female governor, went straight for the economic argument. The core of her message was simple: costs are still high for a lot of people, more than a year into Trump's second term, and his policies are part of the problem.

She pointed a finger at trade policy. "His reckless trade policies have forced American families to pay more than $1,700 each in tariff costs," she claimed. Now, here's an interesting bit of context she mentioned: the Supreme Court just ruled against the Trump administration's emergency tariff policy last week. But Spanberger's argument was that the ruling is almost beside the point now. "The damage to the American people has already been done," she said.

This wasn't just a critique; it was a preview of a campaign strategy. She framed the Democratic approach for the upcoming midterms around this singular focus on affordability. "Democrats are laser-focused on affordability in our nation's capital and in state capitals and communities across America," she stated. It's a direct response to Trump's speech, where he described his administration as ushering in a "golden age" with improved border security, rebounding national morale, falling inflation, and rapidly climbing incomes.

Spanberger's rebuttal is essentially the playbook Democrats think can win in November: amplify the issue of affordability, an issue that has, as she noted, been a persistent headache for the president as voters keep talking about rising costs and economic uncertainty.

Safety, Security, and "Deeply Unserious" Appointments

But she didn't stop at the kitchen-table economics. Spanberger, a former CIA officer and House lawmaker before becoming governor, also took aim at the administration's approach to safety and foreign policy.

She criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in cities led by Democrats, specifically applauding resistance to those efforts in Minneapolis. "Our president has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans," she argued. "And they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability."

On the world stage, her criticism was even broader. She claimed Trump's foreign policy continues to "cede economic power and technological strength to China, bow down to a Russian dictator, and make plans for war with Iran."

Her summary of the president's address was blunt: "He lied, he scapegoated, he distracted, and he offered no real solutions to our nation's pressing challenges."

Then she added a line that pulled from her national security background. "Here's the truth," she said. "Through DOGE, through mass firings and the appointments of deeply unserious people to our nation's most serious positions, our president has endangered our long and storied history of the United States of America being a force for good." It's a heavy charge—that the administration's personnel choices and actions have actively damaged America's global reputation and role.

So, there you have it. Two speeches, two very different realities. One talked about a golden age; the other talked about a $1,700 tariff bill and federal agents in masks. In politics, as in markets, the narrative depends entirely on which numbers—and which truths—you choose to highlight.