Research Methodology

Our standards for inclusion, sourcing, and threat tier classification.

Inclusion Criteria

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.

Source Standards

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.

We avoid Wikipedia as a primary source, though it can serve as a starting point for research. Partisan media, blogs, and social media posts alone are insufficient for inclusion.

Threat Tier Definitions

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.

Tier 1: Violent Extremist

HIGH

Tier 1

Tier 2: Stochastic Terrorism

HIGH

Tier 2

Tier 3: Anti-Democratic Actor

HIGH

Tier 3

Tiers 4 and 5 below involve more subjective assessment and are clearly marked as such.

Tier 4: Authoritarian-Aligned

HIGH

Tier 4

Tier 5: Ideological Influencer

HIGH

Tier 5

Analytic Confidence

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.

HIGH

High Confidence

(85-100%)

Strong, corroborated evidence from multiple reliable sources. The assessment is well-supported and unlikely to change significantly.

MOD

Moderate Confidence

(60-84%)

Good evidence with some gaps or limited corroboration. Additional evidence could strengthen or modify the assessment.

LOW

Low Confidence

(30-59%)

Limited evidence with significant uncertainty. The assessment is provisional pending additional research.

Confidence levels appear alongside tier badges throughout the site. Hover over any badge to see the detailed confidence assessment.

Source Reliability Scale

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.

Note on government sources: Government reliability varies significantly by jurisdiction, agency, and context. We default government sources to rating C and evaluate each case individually. Sources from authoritarian regimes or self-serving government statements about political opponents receive additional scrutiny.

Periodic Review

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
T4 T5	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.

On Objectivity

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.