The claims behind the argument, checked against the record
Each week we take a widely heard episode or piece and check the claims it rests on against primary sources. Every source is linked and dated, and every verdict is about the claim, not the person.
Latest fact-checks
How we check
We take the claims that carry the argument and check each one against primary sources: the agency release, the filing, the original article. We link every source with its date. The speaker carries the burden of proof, so a claim with no evidence either way is rated Unsupported, not false. We check in both directions, and we say so when a speaker understated their own case.
- Accurate
- The claim is right as stated.
- Mostly accurate
- Right in substance, though a detail is off or out of date.
- Missing context
- The figure is right, but the frame around it leaves a false impression.
- Misleading
- Built from real data, but arranged to mean something the data does not show.
- Inaccurate
- Wrong: the record shows a different figure or fact.
- Unsupported
- We found no evidence for it, and none against it.
Every claim is checked against primary sources, and every verdict gets an independent second review before we publish. We use AI to research and draft, and no verdict rests on a model's memory: each one cites a source you can open. When a claim is about an AI company, a model made by that company does not get the final say.
Found an error? Email [email protected] with the claim and your source. We log every correction on the page, with its date.