Take Back Our Republic (TBOR) believes that individual participation in the American political system is the best way to preserve and strengthen our liberty. We engage in research, education, and advocacy about returning political power to individuals and ending the system of escalating campaign contributions by corporations, labor unions and special interests that fuels government spending. We believe politicians should be responsible to the people and not to self-serving moneyed interest who seek government subsidies and special treatment at a significant cost to taxpayers. Our mission is To be the leading organization in developing a culture in politics where character and ideas are the basis of being elected, and that every election is financed with transparency primarily by the people to be REPRESENTED and not by outside special interests.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold
Getty Images, fudfoto
Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration
Aug 11, 2025
Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold: from 1,048 detainees to 11,972 (an increase of 1,042%), according to public data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of immigration enforcement within the United States
In the same period (January 1 to June 28, 2025), the number of detainees with criminal records rose by 55%, from 9,741 to 15,141.
ICE data also show that fewer arrests are happening at border crossings and more are occurring throughout the rest of the country.
The increase in arrests of people without a criminal record, according to experts consulted by Factchequeado, is due to changes in immigration policies and measures taken by the Republican administration.
Puedes leer esta nota en español haciendo clic aquí.
Lauren DesRosiers, professor and director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the P. Swyer Justice Center at Albany Law School, told Factchequeadothat the arrests increased because the Trump administration rescinded immigration enforcement priorities implemented under President Joe Biden, a democrat. The Biden administration had prioritized arrests of individuals with “certain serious convictions,” DesRosiers said.
Another factor, according to DeRosiers and Florence Otaigbe-Nkwocha, an immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is the daily arrest “quotas” imposed on ICE agents. As reported by media outlets such as AlJazeera or Reuters, at the end of May 2025, the Trump administration increased the daily arrest quota from 1,000 per day to 3,000 immigrants. California Democratic Congressman Mark Takano also said on June 25, 2025, that the quota “does not force them to focus on felons and violent criminals" during a speech on the House floor in a special session titled "Holding Power Accountable."
Otaigbe-Nkwocha also cited other contributing factors, such as the rescinding of an October 2021 memo that prohibited immigration enforcement actions near or inside protected areas, like schools, hospitals, or religious sites, and the suspension of an April 27, 2021 memo that prohibited immigration enforcement near courthouses.
"Enforcement has increased due to ICE having more access to areas where they can arrest people," Otaigbe-Nkwocha told Factchequeado. "With how easy it is today to arrest in almost any location now, it could be said that this directly correlates to the increase," he added.
What the data say: fewer arrests at border crossings, more in the rest of the country
Since the beginning of Trump's second term, ICE arrests have become less common at border crossings and more frequent in the rest of the country. For example, looking at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehensions data, there were 460 arrests per day in the last quarter of 2024 (October, November and December). That figure dropped to an average of 170 arrests per day (14,264 per month) beginning in January 2025.
In contrast, data on immigrants detained by ICE in the rest of the country (non-border areas) show that the average daily number of arrests rose from 262 people in the last quarter of 2024 to 666 detainees per day as of January 2025, with a peak of 1,011 detainees per day in June (a total of 30,328 were detained in that month, according to data collected by Factchequeado through June 28).
ICE also classifies both ICE and CBP arrests into three categories based on the detainees’ criminal history.
These are the official ICE definitions:
- Convicted criminal: people who have violated immigration laws and who already had a criminal conviction when they were detained by ICE.
- Pending criminal charges: people who have violated immigration laws and had unresolved criminal charges at the time they were detained by ICE.
- Other immigration violator: people who have violated immigration laws, but had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges at the time they were detained by ICE.
Among all immigrants detained by ICE, those classified as "other immigration violators," i.e., those with no criminal history, rose from 7% (1,048) in January 2025 to 29% (11,972) in June 2025. Meanwhile, those arrested under the "pending criminal charges" category accounted for 31% (4,747) in January and rose to 33% (13,560) by June 2025.
In contrast, the percentage of detainees classified as "convicted of a crime" dropped from 63% (9,741) to 37% (15,141) of the total number of arrestees over the same period.
John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE during Barack Obama's presidency, told ABC News, " for the last probably 15 years at least, the majority of ICE arrests, people booked into ICE custody or ICE apprehensions, were individuals apprehended at the border."
"The problem is that you are now engaged in operations that are, frankly, more likely to find non-criminals than criminals," Sandweg added in the ABC article, which also found in ICE data that the current administration is increasingly arresting immigrants without criminal records.
An analysis by the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan, independent public policy research organization that "promotes libertarian ideas", of non-public ICE data found that 65% of those detained between October 1, 2024, and June 14, 2025, had no criminal record, and more than 93% have never been convicted of violent crimes.
84% of ICE detainees are considered "non-threat level" individuals
The data also shows the criminal history of immigrants held in ICE detention centers.
The agency classifies detainees into four categories::
- ICE Threat Level 1: Includes aggravated felonies, violence, major drugs, terrorism or threats to national security. These individuals are ICE's highest priority.
- ICE Threat Level 2: Includes crimes not as serious as Level 1, but still significant (fraud, weapons, multiple misdemeanors). They are a medium-high priority.
- ICE Threat Level 3: Includes individuals with one or two non-violent misdemeanors. Low priority for ICE, although may be subject to action.
- No ICE Threat Level: Individuals with no criminal convictions. Generally undocumented migrants with no criminal history. Low priority under current policy, but still subject to deportation depending on political or legal context.
According to data collected as of June 23, 84% (39,722 individuals) of immigrants held in detention centers were classified under the "No ICE Threat Level" category. Threat Level 1 accounted for 7% (3,371 people); Level 2 for 4% (1,801); and Level 3 for 5% (2,338). The majority of detainees in all categories are held in detention centers in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, California, and Georgia.
The percentages of each group has remained relatively the same since fiscal year (FY) 2022. However, between 2019 and 2021 (during part of the previous Trump administration) immigrants with no criminal history accounted for about 62%, while those at ICE Threat Level 1 made up 17%.
Jacqueline Watson, an immigration attorney and second national vice president of AILA, told Factchequeado that the data show that most immigrants in ICE detention centers have no criminal history "because immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born population," contrary to what is repeated on social media. In this Factchequeadoarticle, we explained that there is no data showing a "crime wave" caused by immigrants, and in this article, we explained that immigrants have lower incarceration rates than U.S.-born individuals.
Graphic: Ignacio Ferreiro.
Data also shows that FY 2025 has already surpassed the number of detainees in detention centers in FY 2019 (46,304). As of June 23, 2025, there were 47,232 individuals in detention centers and there are still three months left in the fiscal year (which runs from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025).
Data on immigrants in detention centers do not include certain facilities classified as:
- HOLD, which are temporary detention centers;
- HOSPITAL;
- HOTEL;
- ORR, an acronym for the Office of Refugee Resettlement which oversees unaccompanied minors;
- MIRP, an acronym for the Mexican Interior Repatriation Program.
Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration was originally published by Factchequeado and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Akarapong Chairean/Getty Images
Generative AI Can Save Lives: Two Diverging Paths In Medicine
Aug 10, 2025
Generative AI is advancing at breakneck speed. Already, it’s outperforming doctors on national medical exams and in making difficult diagnoses. Microsoft recently reported that its latest AI system correctly diagnosed complex medical cases 85.5% of the time, compared to just 20% for physicians. OpenAI’s newly released GPT-5 model goes further still, delivering its most accurate and responsive performance yet on health-related queries.
As GenAI tools double in power annually, two distinct approaches are emerging for how they might help patients.
One path involves FDA-approved tools built by startups and established technology companies. The other empowers patients to safely use existing tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude.
Each path has advantages and tradeoffs. Both are likely to shape healthcare’s future.
To better understand what’s at stake, it’s first helpful to examine how generative AI differs from the FDA-approved technologies used in medicine today.
Narrow AI
Medicine has relied on “narrow AI” applications for more than two decades, using models trained to complete specific tasks with structured clinical data.
These tools are programmed to compare two data sets, identify subtle differences, and assign a precise probability factor to each. In radiology, for example, narrow AI models have been trained on thousands of mammograms to distinguish between those demonstrating early-stage breast cancer and those with benign conditions like fibrocystic disease. These tools can detect differences too subtle for the human eye, resulting in up to 20% greater diagnostic accuracy than doctors working alone.
Because narrow AI systems produce consistent, repeatable results, they fit neatly within the FDA’s current regulatory framework. Approval requires measurable data quality, algorithmic transparency, and reproducibility of outcomes.
Generative AI: A new kind of medical expertise
Generative AI models are built differently. Rather than being trained on structured datasets for specific tasks, they learn from the near-totality of internet-accessible content, including thousands of medical textbooks, academic journals, and real-world clinical data.
This breadth allows GenAI tools to answer virtually any medical question. But the large language model responses vary based on how users frame questions, prompt the model, and follow up for clarification. That variability makes it impossible for the FDA to evaluate the accuracy and quality of the tools.
Two distinct pathways are emerging to bring generative AI into clinical practice. Maximizing their impact will require the government to change how it evaluates and supports technological innovation.
1. The traditional path: FDA-approved, venture-backed
As medical costs rise and patient outcomes stagnate, private technology companies are racing to develop FDA-approved generative AI tools that can help with diagnosis, treatment, and disease management.
This approach mirrors the narrow AI model: high-priced tools that are highly regulated and largely dependent on insurance coverage for American families to afford them.
With venture funding, companies can fine-tune open-source foundation models (like DeepSeek or Meta’s LLaMA) using a process called “distillation.” This involves extracting domain-specific knowledge and retraining the model with real-world clinical experiences, such as tens of thousands of X-rays (including radiologists’ readings) or anonymized transcripts of patient-provider conversations.
Consider how this approach might impact diabetes management. Today, fewer than half of patients achieve adequate disease control. The consequences include hundreds of thousands of preventable heart attacks, kidney failures, and limb amputations each year. A generative AI tool trained specifically for diabetes could replicate the approach of a skilled chronic disease nurse: asking the right questions, interpreting patient data, and offering personalized guidance to help users better manage their blood sugar levels.
This path already appears to have federal backing. The Trump administration recently launched its Medicare-funded Health Tech Ecosystem initiative, partnering with more than 60 tech and healthcare firms to pilot AI-enabled tools for chronic disease management, including diabetes and obesity.
Although distillation is faster and cheaper than building an AI model from scratch, the timeline to FDA approval could still span several years and cost tens of millions of dollars. And any adverse outcome could expose companies to legal liability.
2. The alternate path: Empowering patients with GenAI expertise
This second model flips the innovation equation. Instead of relying on expensive, FDA-approved tools developed by private tech companies, it empowers patients to use low-cost, publicly available generative AI to manage their own health better. This can be accomplished through digital walkthroughs, printed guides, YouTube videos, or brief in-person sessions.
For example, a patient might input their blood pressure, glucose readings, or new symptoms and receive reliable, evidence-based advice from ChatGPT or Claude: whether a medication change is needed, when to alert their doctor, or if emergency care is warranted. Similarly, patients working with their physicians could use these LLMs to detect early signs of post-operative infection, worsening heart failure, or neurological decline.
With 40% of doctors already engaged in “gig work,” an ample supply of clinicians from every specialty would be available to contribute their expertise to develop these training tools.
This model would bypass the need for costly product development or FDA approval. And because it offers education, not direct medical care. It would create minimal legal liability.
Government support for both models
These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Both have the potential to improve care, reduce costs, and extend access. And both will benefit from targeted government support.
The traditional path will require companies to evaluate the reliability of their tools by testing the accuracy of their recommendations against clinicians. When these tools are equivalent, the FDA would give its approval.
The alternate path of educating patients to use existing large language models will benefit from educational grants and added expertise from agencies like the CDC and NIH, partnering with medical societies to develop, test, and distribute training materials. These public-private efforts would equip patients with the knowledge to use GenAI safely and effectively without waiting years for new products or approvals.
Together, these models offer a safer and more affordable future for American healthcare.
Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
Keep ReadingShow less
File:Donald Trump (29496131773).jpg - Wikimedia Commons
The Battle Over Truth: Trump, Data, and the Fight for Reality
Aug 10, 2025
I. The Battle Over Facts
When Donald Trump fired Dr. Kristine Joy Suh, head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after a disappointing July jobs report, it wasn’t merely a personnel decision—it was a sharp break with precedent. Suh’s removal upended decades of tradition in which BLS commissioners, regardless of who appointed them, were shielded from political retaliation to preserve statistical integrity. In his second term, Trump has made it clear that data isn’t merely information to be reported—it’s a narrative to be controlled. If the numbers align with his message, they’re hailed as proof of success. If they don’t, they’re dismissed as fake—or worse, subversive.
This shift signals more than a partisan impulse—it marks the erosion of institutions designed to uphold objective truth. For decades, federal statistics have anchored democratic governance, offering policymakers, markets, and the public a shared factual baseline. Trump’s approach upends that legacy, promoting the idea that data should serve political ends rather than public understanding.
The war on truth isn’t new, but under Trump, it has escalated into a sustained campaign against independent information. This is no longer just about spin; it’s about restructuring government to control the public’s understanding of social reality. At stake is whether democracy can function at all without a foundation of facts.
II. Data as Narrative: When Numbers Tell a Political Story
Presidents have always tried to spin the numbers. But Trump has gone further—casting doubt not just on interpretations but on the legitimacy of the data itself. During his first term, he routinely dismissed unfavorable jobs reports, distorted trade figures, and undermined the Federal Reserve’s credibility. In his second term, this distrust has hardened into policy: statistical professionals are fired, and institutions are reshaped to serve partisan objectives.
This tactic mirrors authoritarian regimes. Argentina manipulated inflation statistics for years. China’s economic numbers are widely viewed as political theater. The consequences in both cases are well known: investors hesitate, policy flounders, and public trust collapses. Without reliable data, no one—from executives to voters—can make informed decisions.
Trump’s economic storytelling follows this pattern. He claimed to have created “7 million jobs,” despite a slowdown in job growth compared to the Obama years. According to a July 2020 FactCheck.org report, 7.8 million jobs had actually been lost since Trump took office, including 274,000 manufacturing jobs and 7,100 coal mining jobs. Meanwhile, a low unemployment rate disguised stagnant wages and shrinking labor force participation.
These distortions are reinforced by conspiracy rhetoric. Trump and his allies have accused career civil servants of being part of a “deep state.” In 2019, he even blamed the Federal Reserve for supposedly using flawed data to suppress economic growth. In his second term, that rhetoric has justified a sweeping purge and restructuring of federal statistical agencies.
The infrastructure for producing trustworthy data still exists—but its foundations are being chipped away. If people stop trusting official statistics, even accurate ones lose their power. And when truth becomes negotiable, democracy begins to rot—not in a dramatic collapse, but in slow, unnoticed decay.
III. How U.S. Economic Data Is Supposed to Work
For generations, the United States has been the global gold standard for independent economic data. This credibility relies on institutional safeguards that keep politics at bay.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys about 60,000 households and 120,000 businesses each month to report on jobs, wages, and labor force dynamics. These processes are governed by strict scientific protocols and carried out by nonpartisan professionals. The same holds true for the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and other statistical arms of government.
Equally vital is the release protocol: data is published on a rigid schedule—without political preview or interference. Agencies disclose their methodologies, acknowledge margins of error, and correct mistakes publicly. Independent economists and journalists vet the results. These checks are not ceremonial—they’re essential.
The system has withstood pressure before. In 2020, the Census Bureau resisted attempts to manipulate its count of undocumented immigrants. But what once required vigilance now requires urgent defense.
This year, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) executed a mass purge of federal employees. Over 200,000 workers—many of them statisticians and data analysts—were fired. Elon Musk briefly led the “agency” (it was never officially authorized by Congress), claiming efficiency as the goal. But internal watchdogs saw something else: a targeted dismantling of statistical capacity.
The results are already visible. Survey sizes are shrinking, data processing is slower, and regional offices—especially in underserved areas—are closing. The result is a federal data system that’s less accurate, less comprehensive, and more susceptible to distortion.
This isn’t an abstract threat. When the numbers fail, the system fails. Legislators can’t budget. Businesses can’t invest. Voters can’t judge performance. Without trusted data, democracy becomes guesswork. And once trust erodes, restoring it is far more difficult than sustaining it.
We don’t need a scenario of outright falsification to sound the alarm. Eroding staffing, politicizing leadership, and slashing oversight are enough to poison the well. In today’s fractured environment, even a whisper of doubt can be weaponized.
Defending public data may seem technical, even dull. But it’s fundamental to safeguarding democracy itself. If we can’t trust the numbers, what’s left to guide policy, accountability, or civic debate? Truth is infrastructure. And in an era when power seeks to bend reality, that infrastructure must be defended.
A democracy cannot function in the dark—though you wouldn’t know it from the Washington Post, which once emblazoned a similar phrase as a slogan during Trump’s first term, only to quietly retire it when the marketing calculus changed. At a time when media vigilance is essential, walking away from that commitment accelerates the erosion of facts. The truth, inconvenient or not, still matters.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Michael Chippendale, Minority Leader of the Rhode Island House of Representatives
Credit: Hugo Balta
Michael Chippendale: Realistic, Not Idealistic Government
Aug 10, 2025
Michael Chippendale is a seasoned Republican legislator and the current Minority Leader of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. Representing District 40—which includes Coventry, Foster, and Glocester—Chippendale has served in the General Assembly since 2010, steadily rising through the ranks of GOP leadership.
Chippendale was unanimously elected House Minority Leader in June 2022 and re-elected in December 2024. Prior to this, he served as Minority Whip from 2018 to 2022. His leadership style is marked by a focus on government efficiency, tax reform, and regulatory relief for small businesses.
- YouTube youtu.be
I spoke with Rep. Chippendale while on assignment in Providence, producing the first episode of The 50, a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.
Chippendale acknowledged the concerns many people are having about President Donald Trump’s heavy-handed approach and the speed with which changes are being implemented. He also said that the American public has started to become disenchanted with politicians who promise things that they never do.
"He had to act quickly. He had to fulfill those promises," Chippendale said. "So, when he made such bold promises on the campaign trail and then immediately enacted so many of them, I think that weathered the people who are going to feel the pain from the economic policies enough to say, 'I'm going to be ok. I trust that he's going to do what he says he's going to do."
- YouTube youtu.be
Rep. Chippendale shared how a family trip to Philadelphia inspired him to run for public office. "So, we went to the Pennsylvania State House. I saw the desk at which the two delegates from Rhode Island sat when the Declaration of Independence was signed, when the Constitution was being argued. And this patriotic, romantic American spirit took over." When the family left Philadelphia, the next day, Chippendale said he told his wife he was going to run for office.
The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature. Rep. Chippendale also spoke to the Fulcrum about being strategic as a political superminority. "When you set your goals to a level that is realistic and not idealistic, you have a better chance of realizing those goals. And I'm going to run with that if I think it will improve the lives of the people I represent. If it's a good enough idea, I've found, and if you approach it the right way, you can even win the support of the supermajority if you can make a persuasive argument."
Mr. Chippendale collaborates with fellow elected officials to improve people's participation in the electoral process, starting with investing time in students.
Secretary Amore hosts the Rhode Island Civic Leadership Program, in which State Representative Chippendale has participated. The immersive, year-long nonpartisan initiative is designed to connect high school students to their government and build skills and habits that foster lifelong civic engagement.
SUGGESTIONS:
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community
David Guo: Combining Art and Civic Engagement
Rich Harwood: A Philosophy of Civic Faith
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More