Reading Time: < 1 minute

The definition of mass shootings varies, but research has found the U.S. has the most.

Reasons include high gun ownership, “cultural factors like individualism and fame-seeking, sensationalized media coverage, and gaps in mental health care and law enforcement,” said James Densley of the Violence Prevention Project Research Center.

According to two peer-reviewed studies:

U.S. mass shootings accounted for 73% of all incidents and 62% of all fatalities in developed countries from 1998–2019.

That study’s author wrote in February there were 109 U.S. mass shootings from 2000-2022 and 35 in comparable countries. The U.S. accounted for 33% of the population of the 36 countries, but 76% of the incidents and 70% of victim fatalities.

The U.S. had 30.8% of all mass shooters from 1966–2012, despite having less than 5% of the world’s population.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan made the U.S. claim after a mass school shooting Dec. 16 in Madison, Wisconsin, which he represents.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Global mass shootings: comparing the United States against developed and developing countries
• James Densley, Violence Prevention Project Research Center deputy director Email, Dec. 19, 2024
• Dom Salvia Show Mark Pocan interview
• Rockefeller Institute of Government Public Mass Shootings Around the World: Prevalence, Context, and Prevention
• Econ Journal Watch The Importance of Analyzing Public Mass Shooters Separately from Other Attackers When Estimating the Prevalence of Their Behavior Worldwide
• Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director, Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium Email, Dec. 20, 2024
• CNN How US gun culture stacks up with the world
• Washington Post Fact Checker Does the U.S. lead the world in mass shootings?
• USA Today Fact check: Comparison of school shootings in the US, other countries uses old data

Does the US have more mass shootings per person than any other nation? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A 2024 RAND report and four experts in mass shootings said they know of no research concluding that the presence of armed officers deters school shootings.

The armed officers claim was made Dec. 19 by school safety advocate Ryan Petty in an interview about a mass shooting Dec. 16 at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. 

That school didn’t employ an officer.

Petty’s daughter was killed in the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, school, which did.

Petty said the connection is “proven.” He didn’t cite research to Wisconsin Watch.

Whether arming school resource officers “leads to net harms or benefits … could be addressed with strong scientific research designs or observational studies,” RAND said.

A 2023 University at Albany-RAND study found school resource officers reduce some violence and increase weapon detection, “but do not prevent gun-related incidents.”

A 2021 U.S. DOJ-funded study said “data suggest no association” between armed officers and deterring mass shootings.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• RAND: The Effects of Laws Allowing Armed Staff in K-12 Schools
• Metro State University professor James Densley: Email, 12/19/24
• University of Alabama professor Adam Lankford: Email, 12/19/24
• Armed American Radio: Ryan Petty interview, 12/19/24
• University at Albany-RAND: The Thin Blue Line in Schools: New Evidence on School-Based Policing Across the U.S.
• U.S. Justice Department: Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019

Has research found that armed officers deter school shootings? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Every year Wisconsin Watch produces some of the best investigative journalism in Wisconsin, and this year was no exception. We exposed a judge abusing his power to benefit a coworker, revealed how AI is helping the state catch illegal manure spreading, catalogued every book ban request in all 421 school districts and found state prisons hiring doctors with disciplinary histories.

But what made this year particularly special was the introduction of the Forward newsletter. Each week the Wisconsin Watch state team produces shorter stories about what we expect to be the big news and trends in the days, weeks and months ahead. It’s something our local media partners asked for and our state team reporters delivered.

As the year winds down, we gave each state team reporter the assignment of picking a favorite story written by another member of the team (Secret Santa style!). Here were their picks:

Conservative talk radio continues to be a powerful political tool in Wisconsin

To some, radio is a source of entertainment and information from a bygone era. They’re mistaken. Hallie Claflin’s deeply reported, authoritative story illustrates the immense and continuing influence of talk radio — especially conservative talk radio — in Wisconsin politics. The rise of former Gov. Scott Walker, the toppling of a Democratic mayor in Wausau and the deaths of certain bills in the Legislature can all be tied, at least in part, to advocacy or opposition from conservative talk radio hosts. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, the state’s most powerful Republican, makes regular appearances on broadcasts and described talk radio as being “as powerful as it’s ever been.” This story is worth your time as you look ahead to 2025.

— Jack Kelly

Why we investigated Wisconsin Pastor Matthew Trewhella

Phoebe Petrovic’s profile of militant, anti-abortion Pastor Matthew Trewhella, her first investigation as Wisconsin’s first ProPublica local reporting network fellow, was an engaging read. But I especially liked the companion piece she wrote. It’s a reader service to do this kind of story when we do a large takeout on a person or subject unfamiliar to most readers. It also might drive readers to the main story when they learn more about why we did it. It puts the readers behind the scenes a bit and has the potential to make readers feel more connected to Wisconsin Watch.

— Tom Kertscher

Here are some claims you might hear during tonight’s presidential debate — and the facts

Tom Kertscher does an amazing job with all of his fact briefs, but my favorite has to be a compilation that fact-checked presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump right before their September debate. Over the past few races, presidential campaigns have been full of misinformation. Debates are a vital time to show the reality of candidates and their beliefs. Tom’s story made sure people could accurately judge the claims both candidates were making. I learned about many new and important topics across party lines like Trump’s for-profit college, Harris’ claim about tracking miscarriages and accurate deportation statistics.

— Khushboo Rathore

DataWatch: Wisconsin incarcerates more people than its prisons were designed to hold

Khushboo Rathore’s DataWatch report detailing that the state’s prison population was at nearly 130% capacity stood out as one of my favorite pieces this year. Not only did this short story shed light on severe deficiencies in Wisconsin’s prison system, it also presented the findings in a digestible format that helped readers understand overcrowding in prisons through striking data. It’s one thing to report that Wisconsin prisons are overwhelmed, and it’s another to have the numbers that show it. This piece has the power to reshape future conversations about statewide prison reform, which is what our work here at Wisconsin Watch is all about! 

— Hallie Claflin

Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear high-profile abortion rights case, draft order shows

Jack Kelly has some of the best sourcing this newsroom has ever seen. He’s such an affable people-person, and it enables him to get coffee with anyone and everyone and build legitimate relationships that result in wild scoops, like this one. It’s a testament to his brilliance as a reporter.

— Phoebe Petrovic

Forward: Our picks for favorite politics stories of the year is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The value of food imported into the U.S. exceeds what is exported.

That’s a recent reversal of a long-term trend, as U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden stated Dec. 2.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. is “beholden on other nations,” as the western Wisconsin Republican claimed.

The U.S. was an annual net exporter of agricultural products from at least the 1970s through 2018, but since then has mostly been a net importer, and the gap is widening.

In fiscal 2025, the value of agricultural imports is projected at $215.5 billion and exports $170 billion. 

William Ridley, a University of Illinois agricultural and consumer economics professor, said the U.S. produces more food for itself than ever, but it’s a net importer because of demand for imported food, much of it from allies.

Some imports, including out-of-season produce, come from foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies, said Steve Suppan, of the nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• CNN: Rep. Derrick Van Orden interview, Dec. 2, 2024
• University of Kentucky Agricultural Economics Department: U.S. Ag Exports, Imports and Trade Balance
• U.S. Agriculture Department: Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade
• Professor Andrew Stevens: Email, 12/11/24
• Steve Suppan: Email 12/11/24
• Professor Seungki Lee: Email 12/12/24

Does the US import more food than it exports? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions, has saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

The 2011 law could be reviewed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court because of a recent judge’s ruling.

The law achieved savings mainly by shifting costs for pension and health benefits for public employees to the employees.

The nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum found in 2020 that state and local governments saved $5 billion from 2011 to 2017 in pension costs alone.

PolitiFact Wisconsin reported in 2014 that public employers saved over $3 billion on pensions and health insurance.

Getting rid of Act 10’s pension, health insurance and salary limits would raise annual school district costs $1.6 billion and local government costs $480 million, the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty estimated in September.

However, the recent court ruling doesn’t invalidate Act 10’s higher employee contribution requirements, said attorney Jeffrey Mandell, who represents unions in the pending case.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislative Council: 2011 Wisconsin Act 10
• Dane County Circuit Court: Decision and order in Case No. 2023CV3152
• Wisconsin Policy Forum: Bridging the Pension Gap
• PolitiFact Wisconsin: Scott Walker says union reform law that brought massive protests has saved taxpayers $3 billion
• Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty: Back to the Past: The Fiscal Threat of Reversing Act 10 for Local Governments
• Wisconsin Watch: Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford try to overturn Act 10?
• Jeffrey Mandell: Email 12/11/24

Has Wisconsin’s Act 10 union law saved taxpayers billions of dollars? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford was among attorneys who sued seeking to overturn Act 10, a 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions.

The law spurred mass protests for weeks in Madison.

At the time, Crawford said the law violated Wisconsin’s Constitution and was “aimed at crippling public employee unions.”

In 2014, the state Supreme Court upheld Act 10, calling collective bargaining “a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.”  

Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, Crawford’s conservative challenger in the April 1, 2025, election, made the claim about Crawford Dec. 1, 2024. Crawford is a Dane County judge.

On Dec. 2, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost struck down Act 10 in a lawsuit in which Crawford is not listed as an attorney. 

An appeal notice was filed the same day. Appeals are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 liberal majority.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: Dane County Case Number 2011CV003774 Madison Teachers Inc et al vs. Scott Walker et al
• Associated Press: Protesters leave Wis. Capitol on judge’s orders
• PBS Wisconsin: Crawford, Prof. Esenberg on Collective Bargaining Lawsuit
• Wisconsin Supreme Court: Case 2012AP2067
• Associated Press: Wisconsin unions score win as Dane County judge strikes down Act 10
• Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: Dane County Case Number 2023CV003152 Abbotsford Education Association et al vs. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission et al

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford try to overturn Act 10? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

U.S. citizenship is required to vote in Wisconsin, but election officials generally don’t try to verify citizenship when someone registers to vote.

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, made the citizenship claim Nov. 24, 2024. 

The Wisconsin Elections Commission said Nov. 5:

• “Voters must attest to their U.S. citizenship on their voter registration form under penalty of perjury.” 
• Wisconsin and federal law don’t provide for systematically verifying citizenship “beyond the attestation.”
• Falsely claiming citizenship at registration is a felony.

There’s no evidence of noncitizens voting in elections in meaningful numbers.

Voters Nov. 5 amended the Wisconsin Constitution to limit voting to citizens. Republican supporters said it would prevent any move allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, as some U.S. jurisdictions allow.

Over 9% of voting-age U.S. citizens (21.3 million people) cannot readily access proof of citizenship, because they do not have it or could not access it easily, a University of Maryland survey released in June said.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Elections Commission What Are the Rules Regarding Citizens and Voting in Wisconsin?
• WISN 12 News UPFRONT: Speaker Vos 1-on-1
• Wisconsin Watch Noncitizen voting rarely happens. But Wisconsin voters are hearing a lot about it.
• Associated Press Noncitizen voting, already illegal in federal elections, becomes centerpiece of 2024 GOP messaging
• University of Maryland Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge
• Wisconsin Public Radio Wisconsin voters OK changes to constitutional language on citizens and voting
• Wisconsin Watch Has the District of Columbia adopted a law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections?
• Ballotpedia Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Do Wisconsin election officials verify citizenship when a person registers to vote? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The sale of raw or unpasteurized milk generally is illegal in Wisconsin, although “incidental sales” are legal.

An incidental sale is when a dairy farm sells raw milk directly to a consumer at the farm.

But those sales are illegal “if done as a regular business, or if they involve advertising of any kind.”

Robert Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, has indicated he would promote raw milk.

Public health authorities consider raw milk a health danger because it hasn’t been pasteurized — heated enough to kill illness-causing bacteria such as E. coli. But 13 states allow raw milk sales in stores. Advocates say it’s more nutritious, though experts say there isn’t enough evidence to prove that.

A Wisconsin Senate bill introduced in December 2023 would have created licensing for farms that want to sell raw milk. It failed to pass the Senate.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin State Legislature: 2023 Senate Bill 781
• Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: Raw Milk
• The Hill: Five of RFK Jr.’s most controversial views
• X: Robert Kennedy Jr. post
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Raw Milk
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Food Safety and Raw Milk
• World Population Review: Raw Milk Legal States 2024
• WebMD: Raw Milk: Are There Health Benefits?
• Harvard Medical School: Why drinking raw milk can be dangerous
• Wisconsin State Legislature: Senate Bill 781 history

Is there a legal way to get raw milk in Wisconsin? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The average time the U.S. Senate takes to approve nominees to a president’s administration is more than six months.

The nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition reported that as of Nov. 11, 2024, the average number of days has more than doubled under presidents elected since the 1980s:

Joe Biden: 192

Donald Trump: 160.5

Barack Obama: 153.3

George W. Bush: 108.2

Bill Clinton: 100.3

George H.W. Bush: 64.7

Ronald Reagan: 69.4

The nominees include more than 1,000 leadership positions, including Cabinet posts such as attorney general.

One reason for the six-month average: Any senator can “hold” a nominee’s confirmation, sometimes to extract something in return. 

An August research paper concluded it is doubtful that reducing the number of positions needing confirmation would speed up confirmations.

Trump has said he wants the Senate to allow “recess appointments,” which wouldn’t require Senate confirmation, for his next administration.

The issue was raised Nov. 21 by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who called for streamlining confirmations. 

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Center for Presidential Transition: Senate Confirmations Slow to a Crawl
• Bipartisan Policy Center: What’s the Hold Up on Senate Nominees?
• University of Chicago Center for Effective Government: Democracy Reform Primer Series Reducing the Number of Senate-Confirmed Appointees
• New York Times: Could Trump Install Gaetz Without Senate Approval? A Recess Appointment Primer
• Cumulus News Talk: Donald Trump's Upcoming Confirmation Battles | The Vince Coglianese Show

Does it take six months on average for the US Senate to confirm a president’s nominees? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As President-elect Donald Trump stocks his Cabinet with some of his most loyal followers, we’ve already checked some of their surprising and dubious claims.

Here’s a look at a few of them:

No, 40% of children in the U.S. are not taking antidepressants.

Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for health and human services secretary, made that claim while campaigning for Trump in Milwaukee.

The latest evidence we found was for 2022:

Two million adolescents ages 12-17 filled at least one antidepressant prescription, according to a 2024 University of Michigan-led study. That’s 7.9%.

Antidepressants were obtained for 2.7% of children 17 and under, according to a federal agency.

Check out our video version of this fact brief here and please share!

No, Obamacare did not cause health insurance premiums to increase 100%.

Kennedy, who still needs Senate confirmation, made that claim at a forum sponsored by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

Average annual health insurance premiums have increased 67% to 75% since Obamacare became law in 2010 — less than what they increased before the law.

No, deportations under Trump were not “the highest ever”.

That statement was made at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee by Thomas Homan, former head of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He is Trump’s pick for border czar and does not require Senate confirmation.

Such removals were highest during Bill Clinton’s second term as president, averaging 1.7 million annually from 1997 through 2000. 

Trump’s highest was 600,000 in 2020.

Check out the video version of this fact brief here.

Yes, Kamala Harris supported taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates and detainees

The vice president has supported the rare occurrence of taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for prison inmates and detained undocumented immigrants.

That supports a claim made on Wisconsin radio by former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican who was Trump’s pick for attorney general. Last week Gaetz withdrew himself from consideration amid reports he had paid women for sex and also had sex with an underage teen. Trump has since announced he plans to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer instead.

Wisconsin Watch and its partners have also fact-checked claims about (but so far not by) Elon Musk, Trump’s selection to co-lead a government efficiency effort.

We found that Musk was not the founder of Tesla (it was founded by two other entrepreneurs); and that, as of 2022, he was not the richest person in history.

Go here to see all of our fact briefs.

Here are some claims made by Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks — and the facts is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford has opposed the state’s voter identification law.

The 2011 law requires proof of identification to vote. Because of court challenges, it didn’t take effect until 2016.

Crawford was one of three lawyers in a 2011 lawsuit challenging the requirement, which the Supreme Court rejected.

In 2016, Crawford said the law would be “acceptable” if voters could sign an affidavit swearing to their identity rather than providing proof of identification.

In 2018, she called the law “draconian.”

A University of Wisconsin-Madison study estimated the law prevented 4,000-11,000 Milwaukee and Dane county residents from voting in the 2016 presidential election.

The University of California, Berkeley, reported in 2023 that many studies found voter ID laws have little to no impact on voter turnout nationally, while others indicate “a disproportionate negative impact” on minority groups.

Crawford, a Dane County judge, is running April 1, 2025, against conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislative Council: 2011 Wisconsin Act 23
• University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalsm: Wisconsin’s voter ID controversy: What you need to know
• Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: Dane County Case Number 2011CV004669 League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network Inc et al vs. Scott Walker et al
• Justia: League of Women Voters of Wis. Educ. Network, Inc. v. Walker

Has Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford opposed Wisconsin’s voter ID law? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Has 83% of the money from Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts gone to the top 1%? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Does Wisconsin have twice as many registered voters as active voters? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Are 40% of children in US taking antidepressants? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Are Milwaukee vote tabulation machines connected to the internet? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Can anyone order Wisconsin absentee ballots ‘for anyone and ship the ballots anywhere in the world’? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Was the Biden administration’s revision of a jobs report fraud? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Has Tammy Baldwin taken steps to lower prescription drug prices? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin’s swing-state status has driven the presidential candidates to visit the state often ahead of the Nov. 5, 2024, election — and it has driven Wisconsin Watch to fact-check many of the claims they’ve made here.

Our fact briefs, in partnership with Gigafact, centered on statements about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump over immigration, health care and the economy. 

Some of those claims hit the mark; many did not. 

Here’s a look at claims related to three of the top issues voters say they are focused on in this election.

(And be sure to share the video versions of our fact briefs from Wisconsin Watch’s Trisha Young.)

---

---

Economy

No, the U.S. is not producing more energy than it consumes for the first time since the 1950s because of Biden-Harris policies: That occurred in 2019, before Joe Biden and Harris took office. Increased production was “largely a result of increases in crude oil and natural gas production,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported.

Yes, Wisconsin housing prices increased nearly 30% during the Biden-Harris administration: The median price rose 26% from January 2021 to January 2024 — $210,000 to $265,000; and 28% from May 2021 to May 2024 — $246,832 to $315,500.

Yes, real wages increased under Trump more than any other modern president: Real wages — wages adjusted for inflation — increased 7% under Trump, the highest increase over one presidential term since the 1970s.

Immigration

No, Harris did not say she wants to let undocumented immigrants vote: She has campaigned supporting “an earned pathway to citizenship,” but hasn’t provided details. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

No, more terrorists have not entered the U.S. under Harris than in the previous 30 years: One expert told Congress that of the 230 foreign-born people accused of U.S. domestic terrorism from 1975 to 2023, nine entered illegally, including three as children.

No, the Biden-Harris administration did not let more than 400,000 people convicted of crimes enter the U.S.: New data cited by Trump count the number of noncitizens convicted of crimes who entered the U.S. over roughly 40 years, not only under Biden-Harris.

Yes, the Biden-Harris administration attempted to suspend some deportations upon taking office: The administration announced a 100-day suspension of the removal of certain undocumented immigrants on the day Biden was inaugurated. However, a judge blocked the “pause” days later.

No, 25 million undocumented immigrants did not enter the U.S. and stay during the Biden-Harris administration: U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 10 million migrant encounters — one person one or more times — from February 2021 through July 2024. However, millions were turned away, returned or deported.

No, illegal immigration did not drop 90% under Trump: Southwest border encounters decreased 43% in 2017, the first year Trump was in office. But they were higher in each of the next three years than in 2016, including 80% higher in 2019.

Health care

Yes, Harris supported taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates and detainees: She advocated for such policies as a 2020 presidential candidate and earlier, though has been vague in the 2024 campaign.

Yes, Harris supported providing government health care to undocumented immigrants: In her previous presidential run, she proposed Medicare for All to cover all Americans, including undocumented immigrants, in one government health plan.

No, Trump has not said he plans to force states to report miscarriages: The Project 2025 policy initiative, which Trump has distanced himself from, calls for the federal government to “ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place” and “ensure that statistics are separated by category,” including spontaneous miscarriage.

No, Trump is not “threatening to slash Medicare”: He has repeatedly said during the 2024 campaign that he would not cut Medicare.

No, Trump does not want to criminalize women who get an abortion: Trump has said states should decide whether, in certain instances, to prosecute women who get an abortion.

The presidential candidates made a lot of claims in Wisconsin. Here are the facts. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Does Eric Hovde support raising the Social Security retirement age for younger Americans? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.