Our standards for inclusion, sourcing, and threat tier classification.
Entities are included in this database when documented evidence demonstrates actions that threaten liberal democratic institutions, norms, or processes in the United States. We focus on:
Documented Actions
We document actions, not beliefs. Political opinions, however extreme, are not sufficient for inclusion without corresponding anti-democratic conduct.
Verifiable Evidence
All claims must be supported by credible sources. Rumors, anonymous allegations, and unverified reports are not sufficient.
Democratic Impact
The documented actions must have a clear connection to undermining democratic institutions, elections, rule of law, or constitutional governance.
We prioritize authoritative sources with strong editorial standards and verification processes:
Legal Documents
Court filings, indictments, verdicts, DOJ press releases, and official legal proceedings. These are our gold standard.
Government Sources
Congressional reports, official government investigations, regulatory filings, and statements from government agencies.
Academic Research
Peer-reviewed journals, university research centers, and academic experts in relevant fields.
Major Journalism
Established news organizations with robust editorial standards: AP, Reuters, major newspapers, investigative journalism outlets like ProPublica.
Entities are classified into five tiers based on the severity of their documented actions and the strength of available evidence. Lower tier numbers indicate more severe, better-documented threats.
Documented involvement in political violence or terrorism. Evidentiary standard: arrests, convictions, or documented coordination of violence.
Rhetoric demonstrably mobilizing violence against specific targets. Evidentiary standard: documented causal links between content and subsequent threats/attacks.
Active undermining of electoral integrity or rule of law. Evidentiary standard: documented actions such as fake elector schemes or defying court orders.
Elected officials promoting authoritarian policies. Evidentiary standard: policy positions, legislative actions, public statements. Note: involves subjective judgment.
Media figures promoting ideologies deemed harmful to democracy. Evidentiary standard: documented statements. Note: explicitly acknowledges subjective assessment.
We assign confidence levels to our assessments following intelligence community standards. Confidence reflects the quality and corroboration of available evidence, not the certainty that an entity poses a threat.
(85-100%)
Strong, corroborated evidence from multiple reliable sources. The assessment is well-supported and unlikely to change significantly.
(60-84%)
Good evidence with some gaps or limited corroboration. Additional evidence could strengthen or modify the assessment.
(30-59%)
Limited evidence with significant uncertainty. The assessment is provisional pending additional research.
We rate source reliability using a standardized A-D scale adapted from intelligence community practices. This helps readers understand the evidentiary weight of our sources.
| Rating | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| A | Completely Reliable | Court records, official government documents, legal filings, and other primary legal sources. |
| B | Usually Reliable | Major journalism outlets (NYT, WaPo, AP, Reuters) and official government statements. |
| C | Fairly Reliable | Academic research, peer-reviewed studies, think tank reports with documented methodology. |
| D | Limited Reliability | Primary sources (direct statements, social media) that require additional verification. |
Assessments can become outdated. We review entities on a schedule based on their threat tier, ensuring higher-risk classifications receive more frequent scrutiny.
| Tier | Review Interval | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
T1 | 90 days | Violent extremists require frequent review due to high consequence of error |
T2 | 180 days | Stochastic terrorism cases evolve rapidly and need regular reassessment |
T3 | 1 year | Anti-democratic actors typically show slower behavioral evolution |
T4T5 | 18 months | Lower severity tier with more subjective assessment criteria |
During reviews, we verify that existing evidence remains valid, check for new developments, and assess whether the tier classification is still appropriate. Entities may be upgraded, downgraded, or removed based on review findings.
We acknowledge that all documentation involves judgment. Our commitment is to:
Transparency
We show our sources and reasoning. Every claim links to verifiable evidence.
Consistency
We apply the same standards to all entities regardless of political affiliation.
Correction
We promptly correct errors and maintain a public corrections log.
Humility
Tiers 4 and 5 explicitly acknowledge subjective judgment. We do not claim perfect objectivity.
Questions about our methodology? Contact us.