Our editorial standards.

Start with sources that can be checked.

We carefully select sources for relevance, credibility and recency, with an emphasis on original documents and verifiable facts. Our aim is to give readers a reliable starting point for understanding an issue and a clear route to the evidence behind it.

For legislation and government processes, we prioritize official bill text, legislative records, agency publications and government guidance. For constitutional explainers, we turn to the Constitution, court opinions and authoritative public legal resources. Established news reporting can add current context and identify developments that need a closer look.

A source’s reputation matters, but so does what it actually supports. We look for a direct connection between the linked material and the statement being made. A citation is an invitation to inspect the evidence, not a substitute for explaining it.

Check the facts—and the date.

Our sourcing approach is to check publication and update dates, consult the original material when available, and compare additional credible sources when a claim is disputed or developing. An older report resurfacing online should not be presented as a new event.

Dates help readers judge what they are seeing. An article’s update date refers to that article; a bill’s action date refers to an event in its legislative record. A tracker’s source-check date indicates when the displayed information was checked, rather than promising that nothing has changed since.

News, legislation and official guidance can change between reviews. Check the linked original source before relying on a time-sensitive detail. When information is incomplete or uncertain, our standard is to say so rather than fill the gap with an unsupported claim.

Keep evidence and interpretation distinct.

Our explainers put facts into plain language, but an explanation is not the underlying law or official record. A summary of a proposed bill should distinguish what the bill would do from what is already law. Reported events, predictions and opinions should not be presented as interchangeable facts.

CitizenBacked has a stated advocacy focus: initially center-right and conservative causes, followed by bipartisan and nonpartisan priorities. That perspective does not change the need to represent sources accurately, acknowledge material limits, and separate a policy preference from a factual claim.

Our guides provide general civic information. They do not replace individualized legal, financial or other professional advice. Professional advocacy also cannot guarantee a legislative outcome.

Read about CitizenBacked, explore the Citizen’s Guide, or inspect the sources in our constitutional rights explainers and legislation tracker.

Make room for corrections.

If you find an error, a broken source link or an important development we have missed, email [email protected]. Include the page address, the statement or link in question, and a source or explanation that helps us examine it.

Our correction policy is to assess reports against the available evidence, correct substantiated errors, and add a dated explanation when a correction materially changes a reader’s understanding. Minor spelling or formatting fixes may not need a separate correction note. A new development should be identified as an update rather than quietly rewriting the historical record.

Sending a report does not guarantee a particular change or response time. We welcome specific, well-supported corrections, including those that challenge our own interpretation.