Kevin Mulligan's defense of a variant of trope theory is critically examined. It is argued that his account employing tropes, as opposed to facts, in the role of grounding the truths of monadic and relational predications is problematic and not a viable alternative to an account employing facts. A key point involves Mulligan's appeal to the concept expressed by the phrase "because of" in his rejection of facts as grounds of truth and his reliance on the Aristotelian notion of a nature. Further problems with trope doctrines are explored in connection with relations and causality as well as related arguments and views by other figures who have addressed the problems of predication and the status of facts.