TruthBased.org is an independent, data-driven research project — not affiliated with any political party, advocacy group, think tank, or media outlet. No advertising. No sponsored content. Primary sources, disclosed confidence levels, and transparent limitations.
What TruthBased.org does
We take politically charged claims that are widely repeated and test them against the strongest available evidence. We don't pick easy targets. We pick claims where smart, reasonable people disagree — and then we show what the data actually says, who it comes from, and how confident we can be in it.
If a conclusion changes because the evidence changes, we update the article and log the correction publicly on this page.
Source hierarchy
Not all sources are equal. We rank evidence in tiers and always prefer the highest-quality source available for a given claim.
| Tier | Source type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Primary government data, peer-reviewed research, court records, official statistics | FBI UCR, CDC WONDER, DOJ prosecution records, published RCTs, appellate court rulings |
| Tier 2 | Systematic reviews, institutional reports from nonpartisan organizations | Cochrane reviews, RAND Corporation, CBO analyses, Cass Review, university research centers |
| Tier 3 | Reputable journalism, investigative reporting, expert commentary | AP, Reuters, major newspaper investigations, named expert interviews |
| Tier 4 | Advocacy organizations, think tanks, opinion pieces | Heritage Foundation, ACLU, Cato Institute, editorial boards |
When Tier 4 sources are the origin of a claim (as with the Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database), we use them as the starting dataset but verify against higher-tier sources. We never treat advocacy data as settled fact.
Strongest-case testing
A strawman is the weakest version of an argument, easy to knock down. A steelman is the strongest version — the version a smart, well-informed advocate would actually make. Each article includes a dedicated section presenting the best case for each position, using the strongest available evidence and most charitable interpretation.
This is not false equivalence. After presenting each side at full strength, the evidence is weighed and the conclusions follow the data. But the reader sees the full picture first.
Confidence levels
Not all conclusions carry the same certainty. We label our findings using three confidence tiers so readers know exactly how strong the underlying evidence is.
What we disclose
Every article includes the following, by default:
Limitations: What the data cannot tell us. Where gaps exist. What studies haven't been done.
Falsifiability: What evidence would change our conclusion. Every article states what would need to be true for the opposite conclusion to hold.
Scope: What the article covers and what it intentionally excludes, so readers don't assume silence equals endorsement or denial.
Database details: Where the data comes from, what time periods it covers, and how we counted.
How we handle disagreement
When credible sources reach different conclusions, we don't pick the one we prefer. We report the disagreement, explain why the sources diverge (different methodologies, different populations, different time frames), and let the reader see the full landscape. Where the weight of evidence favors one side, we say so — but we never pretend consensus exists where it doesn't.