Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Osha Vaccination

Investigations Committee Releases COVID Vaccine Adverse Effects Report, Research Debated across Party Lines

Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.

The Ku Klux Klan Returns to Power

Independents and Republicans May Hold the Power in Los Angeles – If They Actually Vote

Independents and Republicans May Hold the Power in Los Angeles – If They Actually Vote

May 5 primary ballot issues affect Ohioans' daily lives

May 5 primary ballot issues affect Ohioans' daily lives

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government

Has President Joe Biden ‘let in’ nearly 1,700 people with links to terrorism?

Sen. Ron Johnson in front of a chart

Sen. Ron Johnson claims President Biden has allowed 1,700 terrorists to enter the country. That total refers to encounters (people who were stopped)

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Tom Kertscher
By Tom KertscherJun 20, 2024
Tom Kertscher
Tom Kertscher, Wisconsin Watch is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Has President Joe Biden ‘let in’ nearly 1,700 people with links to terrorism?

No.

Border agents have encountered individuals on the federal terrorist watchlist nearly 1,700 times since President Joe Biden took office — that means those people were stopped while trying to enter the U.S.

The latest figures show 1,664 encounters from fiscal 2021, starting Oct. 30, 2020, through May 15, 2024. That includes nearly three months before Biden was inaugurated.

The watchlist contains known or suspected terrorists and individuals “who represent a potential threat.”

About 78 percent of the encounters were at legal ports, where entry into the U.S. can be denied. The other 367 encounters occurred between legal ports, nearly all at the Southwest border. Those individuals may be detained and removed.

The 1,700 claim was made June 4 by Fox Business TV host Elizabeth MacDonald while interviewing U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

A Fox spokesperson provided no evidence that any of the encounters resulted in entries.

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

Sources

Associated Press Posts misrepresent border encounters with people on terror watchlist

Google Docs Terrorist Screening Data Set Encounters as of June 5, 2024

US Customs and Border Protection CBP Enforcement Statistics

Fox Business Sen. Ron Johnson: Biden's border executive action 'proves point' he's had authority to keep the border closed


Latest news

What Will It Take To Truly Negotiate Paid Leave? Getting to "Yes" on Three Questions
Governance & Legislation

What Will It Take To Truly Negotiate Paid Leave? Getting to "Yes" on Three Questions

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
Media & Technology

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

New York's Childcare Fundraising Bet: What New York City Can Learn from Nairobi
Health

New York's Childcare Fundraising Bet: What New York City Can Learn from Nairobi

Read More

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors
Photo by Steve A Johnson on Unsplash

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026