 To clarify: nefarious “cheats” (like Tallant) will say “&lt;It was the case that p&gt; is true, because it was the case that p”. “Was” is primitive and unanalysable, and those adopting this position will agree that “was” doesn’t pick out any ontology; it doesn’t help us to speak of a distinctive metaphysical category. To that extent, those in this “nefarious” camp, will agree that there are truths about the past, and will agree that how the world was makes true how things are, but they deny that the ensuing truth-maker “relation” (such as it is) between the past and the present (i.e., the true propositions) is existence-entailing. For some, that might simply be considered treacherous. How might presentists motivate the nefarious position?